Bush, Cheney put finishing touches on SOTU speech
January 31, 2006
"I didn't know there were so many gay people out there"
'Brokeback Mountain' receives 8 Oscar nominations, among them best picture, best actor and best director. Also nominated for best picture were the Truman Capote movie, the Edward R. Murrow story "Good Night, and Good Luck", and the assassination thriller "Munich." George Clooney picked up three nominations, 'the first time ever that a contender was honored with acting and directing nominations for two different movies.' Congratulations, all! And to the freetards, bwwwwwwahahahahahahaha!
And everytime they pan to Alito's wife, shove 2 fingers down your throat
The George W. Bush 2006 State Of The Union Drinking Game
What you'll need:
1. A shot glass per person.
2. Fondue pot with two packages of Li'l Smokies stewing in barbecue sauce. Preferably a sauce from Texas. Surrounded by
3. 100 cocktail toothpicks. The kind with the little American flags wrapped around the top.
4. Drink of choice, + beer
Rules of the Game:
1. Whenever George W. uses the phrases: "national security," "tax relief," "activist judges" or "affordable health care," drink two shots.
2. Whenever George W. mentions the tragic events of 9/11, last person to grab a toothpick, stand and salute must drink three shots. If you stab yourself in forehead with the toothpick, drink two more shots.
3. If George W. actually says, "If Al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why," first person to finish a whole beer gets to toss Li'l Smokies at any of the others until they finish their beer. Use the toothpicks.
4. If George W. makes up a word like "strategerie" or "deteriorize" drink four shots.
5. If George W. speaks of Hamas and repeats his earlier statement that "it's good to see people are demanding honest leadership," the first person to stop laughing gets to drink one shot then pummel everyone else with empty shot glasses. No head shots.
6. Whenever George W. talks about bipartisanship, the last person to grab his throat in a choking motion has to eat four Li'l Smokies.
7. If either Vice President Dick Cheney or First Lady Laura Bush are caught napping, last person to sing "Wake Up Little Susie, Wake Up," has to drink three shots.
8. Predict the number of applause breaks. Person closest to correct number may then force the others to drink that number of shots in whatever ratio they wish.
9. Three shots if he mentions New Orleans.
10. Whenever George W. quotes the Bible, last person to fall to their knees and cry "Hallelujah!" drinks two shots.
11. Whenever George W. smirks during a standing ovation, take turns drinking shots until the audience sits down. Do it double time if his shoulders shake with silent laughter.
- thanks to MikeD.
On edit: Everyone gets to throw whatever they can find in the cat's litterbox at the TV when the pundits say something up-beat about Alito's brave little wife and isn't she a great woman, didn't she stand up - and then they'll put the camera right on Ted Kennedy and show how he was the guy that molested her basically...
By a vote of 58-42, the Senate has confirmed scAlito to the Supreme Court.
Only one of the Senate's 55 republicans voted against Alito's confirmation - Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The four Democrats Quislings who broke party ranks and voted for Alito are Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. May you rot in hell.
January 30, 2006
George W. Bush betrays his nation
- Pravda. Yeah.
Plus: DemoUnderground's Top 10 Conservative Idiots is up, and are they pissed.
"A complete hoax on the Senate"
Integrity.
The Senate sat there in 2002 holding hearings on whether FISA should be amended to increase the surveillance powers of the [mis]administration even while the [powermad Bushistas] had decided that FISA was totally irrelevant.
But they let these Senators waste their time and resources holding hearings, calling witnesses, debating these issues, without notifying them that the Administration had freely been eavesdropping for months in violation of FISA and continued to do so.
Unless these Senators have relinquished every last iota of their dignity, how can they not be furious at this complete contempt shown by the Administration towards both the Congress and our nation’s democratic, law-making processes?
- Glenn Greenwald.But they let these Senators waste their time and resources holding hearings, calling witnesses, debating these issues, without notifying them that the Administration had freely been eavesdropping for months in violation of FISA and continued to do so.
Unless these Senators have relinquished every last iota of their dignity, how can they not be furious at this complete contempt shown by the Administration towards both the Congress and our nation’s democratic, law-making processes?
Vomitos, amigos
I've picked up some kind of fluey crud, so blogging may be sort of light today.
"National Security should never be held hostage to a political party, or a political issue or to an election.The American people expect more." - Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, 1/29/06. "Oh, and Karl Rove's a #ucking asshat."
Pants on fire
And no one could've predicted the breech in the levees, either!
In speech after speech, [Preznit Liar McPartyhat] claims that if the National Security Agency could have wiretapped two Al Qaeda operatives living in San Diego, the 9/11 attacks might have been thwarted. "We didn't realize they were here plotting the attack until it was too late," Bush said Wednesday at NSA headquarters.
That's a whopper, critics say.
"It's not true," ex-9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey told the Daily News. "We knew about those two guys - the CIA lost them."
The two guys were Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon.
They were identified in late 1999 by the NSA as Al Qaeda agents and tracked by the CIA to Malaysia and Thailand, where they were lost, according to the 9/11 Commission's report. The CIA learned in March 2000 that Al-Hazmi flew to Los Angeles in January, but kept it secret.
That's a whopper, critics say.
"It's not true," ex-9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey told the Daily News. "We knew about those two guys - the CIA lost them."
The two guys were Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon.
They were identified in late 1999 by the NSA as Al Qaeda agents and tracked by the CIA to Malaysia and Thailand, where they were lost, according to the 9/11 Commission's report. The CIA learned in March 2000 that Al-Hazmi flew to Los Angeles in January, but kept it secret.
January 29, 2006
Spies, lies and wiretaps
"This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking."
A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies...
Including a whopper from slimy POS Karl Rove, "who emerged from hiding" to smear Dems:
Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier...
Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust.
Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust.
- from a righteously pissed NY Times editorial.
January 28, 2006
Someone should just put rat poison in her douche
If a rethuglican harpy skank threatens a Supreme Court Justice, does (s)he make a sound?
"Timmeh had better be asking every Republican on his show on Sunday about this quote. If Obama and Colin Powell are the prime candidates for "ask the black man about Belafonte," then all Republicans are fair game about Coulter. Hang her idiocy around the neck of every Rethug and make them either denounce this statement or pay the penalty. Equal opportunity runs both ways -- and its about time the people benefitting from Coulter's excesses had to pay a penalty for it."- ReddHedd.
Would be nice. But I'm pretty sure Mr Russert will be too busy tarring Democrats with his repuke panel buds this weekend.
CNN: we're as fair and balanced as Fox!
Stuff like this #ucking burns my toast -
ED HENRY, CNN's TALKING RECTUM: John Kerry was back on Capitol Hill after a long flight from Switzerland, and tried to cast his Quixotic filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito as a heroic effort.
Well, that started off well.
/sarcasm
SEN. JOHN KERRY: I know this is flying against some of the sort of political punditry of Washington. I understand that. But this is a fight worth making.
HENRY: But as he tried to dodge a pack of reporters, Kerry seemed to vacillate on just how active he is in the filibuster when asked if he's leading the effort.
HENRY: But as he tried to dodge a pack of reporters, Kerry seemed to vacillate on just how active he is in the filibuster when asked if he's leading the effort.
Gee, Ed, he just came off a - what? - six-hour flight after representing the US at the World Economic Forum. Along with Saxby Chambliss, Michael Chertoff and Paul Wolfowitz, you cheap-shot whore.
KERRY: No, I'm just supporting the effort like others. It's -- you know, I'm very supportive of it, obviously.
HENRY: The White House had a field day with Kerry's hasty exit from the World Economic Conference in Davos.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS-TOOL: I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.
HENRY: The White House had a field day with Kerry's hasty exit from the World Economic Conference in Davos.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS-TOOL: I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.
The 'liberal media' also had a 'field day' with it. I lost count how many times they replayed that clip of Scott McClellan being a fucking dungheap. Bah.
A discredit to the GOP
What do you expect from a bunch of thugs?
The Bush misadministration's distortion, for political purposes, of the Democratic position on warrantless surveillance is loathsome.
Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the slimy WH puffball, and the fabulous RNC headcheese Ken Mehlman to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. Republican Sens. John McCain, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback have expressed legal doubts about the surveillance program. Do they, too, have a "pre-9/11 worldview," as Mr. Rove said of the Democrats?
Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the slimy WH puffball, and the fabulous RNC headcheese Ken Mehlman to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. Republican Sens. John McCain, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback have expressed legal doubts about the surveillance program. Do they, too, have a "pre-9/11 worldview," as Mr. Rove said of the Democrats?
- from a WaPo editorial. Mostly.
Just cover it up with bullshit and hold up something shiny for the sheeple
Nothing to see here, move along...
"Katrina investigators give Bush White House a free pass saying that 'a fog of war' prevented proper disaster management. Funny, the rest of the country knew exactly what was going on." - BuzzFlash.
The White House was beset by the "fog of war" in the crucial days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, leaving it unable to respond properly to the unfolding catastrophe, House investigators said Friday.
"Fog of war"?? Bush, Cheney et al were on vacation! :: *%$# ::
Spreading the santorum
The good senator is starting to get a bit... frothy...
"I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project."
- Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Insane, Thursday, January 26, 2006.
O rly?
"Thank you Grover, and I appreciate your help and support on this and many other issues..."
- Rick Santorum to Grover Norquist at a press conference, 6/28/05.
Crooks and Liars has the video.
January 27, 2006
Hate speech
IOKIYAR
Skanky, poisonous harridan mAnn Coulter told a college audience that liberal Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
The posterscum for retroactive abortion said Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," the walking venereal disease said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
Ho ho, ho.
Corrupt, lawbreaking liars threaten Dems with "looking bad"
And the cowardly, pussy-assed Dems will fall for it.
The White House says a filibuster of scAlito will make the Democrats look bad.
Come again? The White House? We're talking Bush administration officials saying Democrats will look bad? Can a party possibly look any worse than the Republicans do right now with the litany of moral, ethical and criminal charges facing them?- The Ostroy Report.
Majority in US say Bush presidency is a failure
Remainder drooling morons, say polls.
Damage from Bush term 'will last for decades.'
New polls describe the Boy King's second term as a failure and the percentage of Americans who called the straight-shootin' cowpuke "honest and trustworthy'' also fell. At the same point in President Bill Clinton's presidency, 70 percent said they considered it a success. Even with the blowjob.
Enough with the distortions
Is conservative asstool David Limbaugh from another planet? Or is he just insane? Or both?
How's the air on Uranus?
Get it? Your anus? Shit.
We often talk about the Democrats' conspicuous lack of a policy agenda to deflect from the fact that rethugs are morally bankrupt as proof that we don't know what the fuck we're talking abou they are a party in decline. But I think there's even better evidence of the phenomenon: They habitually misrepresent what they stand for and what Republicans stand for {An imperial dictatorship? - Ed.}, and constantly mischaracterize President Bush's actions {What actions were those again? You mean those illegal ones?}. If they had confidence in the salability of their ideas, would they need to play word games, resort to euphemisms, revise history, distort facts and repeat patently false charges {We never met Ken Lay! Those photos with Jack Abramoff were just a coincidence! Hitlery Xlintoon murdered Vince Foster! She was a lesbian! Al Gore invented the internets! John Kerry's got a Purple Heart for a cut! Murtha's a coward!} ?
So Chimpy McFlightsuit is NOT a powermad liar who's bankrupting the country and thinks he's above the law? What?
You light up my life
News anchor engages in mutual masturbation with GOP 'values' maven. Warning: do not read if you have a weak stomach.
WOLF "WETNAP" BLITZER: At the White House today, President Bush has been meeting with security experts about the Patriot Act and his push for a long-term extension of the anti-terror law. The former education secretary, Bill Bennett, was in that meeting in his current role as chairman of the Americans for Victory Over Terrorism. Bill Bennett is with us now. He's wearing yet another new hat. We're happy to welcome him here at CNN as a regular CNN contributor, a participant in our "Strategy Sessions" here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Bill Bennett, welcome to CNN. Smoochies!!
WILLIAM BENNETT, DRUNKEN GAMBLER AND WH TOWELBOY: Glad to be here. Good to be aboard.
BLITZER: Before we talk about what happened at the White House, let's bash John Kerry and his announcement to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.
BENNETT: I just heard it, trying to absorb it, trying to think of what the motivations could be. And the only thing I can think of is this is positioning for the Democratic nomination down the road, in '08. And I think he's trying to step to the front of the line. I think this is the wrong way to go, because I think most of the American people think Alito ought to be confirmed, seems like a reasonable guy. He's conservative, sure, but, you know, we elected a conservative president.
BLITZER: We sure did! Hem. If the Democrats though are divided on this idea of a filibuster, that could embarrass the party, albeit, as you say, it might strengthen Kerry with the base of the party that's very much opposed to Alito.
BENNETT: It might strengthen him with the base, but if he calls for it and nothing happens, it could weaken him.
BLITZER: Because it shows ...
BENNETT: Yes, it shows he's not powerful enough. He's not potent. He's not a leader.
BLITZER: Speaking of potent leaders, let's talk about your meeting with the president. You were there with others who were invited in. What was that about, and just how awesome is he?
BENNETT: It was about national security. It was about the Patriot Act. It was about the NSA. The president spoke. He was very, very earnest, very serious. He talked about the lethality -- he used that word several times -- the lethality of the enemy and his pledge to defend the American people, that he, the president, will defend the American people.
BLITZER: Gosh!
BENNETT: Yes.
BLITZER: Did you emerge smarter in any way? If that's even possible?
BENNETT: Yes, I did. And I can't tell you all the stuff -- some of the stuff I learned, but -- because he wanted it to be off the record.
BLITZER: Oooooh! You're special! Top-secret! Just like James Bond! He's so dreamy. Just like you and the president...
BENNETT: He was speaking very, very freely. But what was clear to me was the president's clear sense of conviction about this. He said there are a lot of issues, and this is the most important one, the protection of the American people.
It was put very well. One thing I can repeat. He said, you know, nothing has changed since 9/11, in terms of people's interest in attacking this country, except they haven't succeeded in going it again. And there's no reason that we should back off on the measures that have kept us safe. He said, I am deadly serious about this. And I will take this all the way. I would've creamed myself if I wasn't such a moral, upstanding republican.
BLITZER (READING SCRIPT): Are you completely comfortable with these wiretaps without warrants?
BENNETT: I am. I am because of presidential power, presidential authority. My own view here is that people have tended to think that because it is a legal issue, that only the courts have legal authority. People forget because of the teaching of Constitutional law, the way it's taught today, Wolf, that the president is an officer of the Constitution. He has a responsibility to execute the law. He is to take the law and execute the law in many occasions.
BLITZER: Listen to what that so-called Republican Senator Arlen Specter said the other day. Listen to this.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, BuzzFlash's hypocrite of the week: The initial claim to authority, from the resolution to authorize the use of force, I think is very, very thin. If the president had asked for authority in the Patriot Act, we would have had a determination, as to whether Congress wanted to give it to him. But to say that there was congressional intent in the resolution for force, I think is a stretch. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BENNETT: That's an issue of whether the president has that authority statutorily from that statute. My argument is that the president has it constitutionally. It's not Congress' to give him.
Under his Article II powers, the president has the authority, indeed, the responsibility to defend the people of the United States. I don't think he needs to get that from Congress. What's interesting is that although a number of critics, mostly Democrats, but as you point out, a few Republicans, who they said they're not sure about it, they don't agree with the president's use of it.
No one has moved to curtail his authority. People have been jumping all over themselves, Wolf, saying "If the president needs this, fine, we'll give it to him." And it is interesting, why hasn't anybody stepped forward and said, "Well, if he needs it and we don't think he has it now, we'll introduce legislation to give it to him," because they'd lose the political advantage.
BLITZER: Everybody should support our president! OK, here's where we tell the Demonrats and the liberal media to just shut up already about those hypothetical comments you made that were taken out of context. You were reported as saying that if you go ahead and abort all black babies, there will be a reduction in crime. It caused a huge stir. Since this is the first time you're joining me here on CNN, I want you to explain to our viewers what you were thinking because I've known you were many years. I know you're not a racist. And I just want our viewers to have an understanding of what you were saying.
BENNETT: Well this was -- first, I want to thank CNN for looking past this canard, or through this canard and taking me on. But I've had a number of controversies in my life and some of them, frankly deserved. This one was not deserved.
I was dealing with a hypothetical, talking about lowering crime rate by aborting babies in the black community. And that this was a hypothetical. Obviously it was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions and books.
But I brought it up as a hypothetical to point out how noxious it was. After having brought up the hypothetical, I said of course that would be a reprehensible and impossible thing to do, direct quote.
Well some of the media that replayed it played the hypothetical, but they didn't play my condemnation of the hypothetical. I'm a college professor, old college professor, I use hypotheticals.
And sometimes you bring up an extreme or ridiculous position in order to show how absurd it is. That was the point of it. So, it was based on a distortion. But more than that, Wolf, it was the whole thing, as it went on, was based on a distortion of my life.
I appreciate what you say about me. I went to Mississippi in 1997, I taught, I taught Martin Luther King letter from a Birmingham jail. I've been committed to civil rights and all anybody has to do is look at my life, my record and the work that we still do.
BLITZER: Bill Bennett, you are a hero. Welcome to CNN. I just love that you'll be spending a lot of time here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Kisses!!!
BENNETT: Thank you very much, great place to be.
BLITZER: Thank you very much. (OFFCAMERA) Ahhhhhh! Tissues, please?
WILLIAM BENNETT, DRUNKEN GAMBLER AND WH TOWELBOY: Glad to be here. Good to be aboard.
BLITZER: Before we talk about what happened at the White House, let's bash John Kerry and his announcement to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.
BENNETT: I just heard it, trying to absorb it, trying to think of what the motivations could be. And the only thing I can think of is this is positioning for the Democratic nomination down the road, in '08. And I think he's trying to step to the front of the line. I think this is the wrong way to go, because I think most of the American people think Alito ought to be confirmed, seems like a reasonable guy. He's conservative, sure, but, you know, we elected a conservative president.
BLITZER: We sure did! Hem. If the Democrats though are divided on this idea of a filibuster, that could embarrass the party, albeit, as you say, it might strengthen Kerry with the base of the party that's very much opposed to Alito.
BENNETT: It might strengthen him with the base, but if he calls for it and nothing happens, it could weaken him.
BLITZER: Because it shows ...
BENNETT: Yes, it shows he's not powerful enough. He's not potent. He's not a leader.
BLITZER: Speaking of potent leaders, let's talk about your meeting with the president. You were there with others who were invited in. What was that about, and just how awesome is he?
BENNETT: It was about national security. It was about the Patriot Act. It was about the NSA. The president spoke. He was very, very earnest, very serious. He talked about the lethality -- he used that word several times -- the lethality of the enemy and his pledge to defend the American people, that he, the president, will defend the American people.
BLITZER: Gosh!
BENNETT: Yes.
BLITZER: Did you emerge smarter in any way? If that's even possible?
BENNETT: Yes, I did. And I can't tell you all the stuff -- some of the stuff I learned, but -- because he wanted it to be off the record.
BLITZER: Oooooh! You're special! Top-secret! Just like James Bond! He's so dreamy. Just like you and the president...
BENNETT: He was speaking very, very freely. But what was clear to me was the president's clear sense of conviction about this. He said there are a lot of issues, and this is the most important one, the protection of the American people.
It was put very well. One thing I can repeat. He said, you know, nothing has changed since 9/11, in terms of people's interest in attacking this country, except they haven't succeeded in going it again. And there's no reason that we should back off on the measures that have kept us safe. He said, I am deadly serious about this. And I will take this all the way. I would've creamed myself if I wasn't such a moral, upstanding republican.
BLITZER (READING SCRIPT): Are you completely comfortable with these wiretaps without warrants?
BENNETT: I am. I am because of presidential power, presidential authority. My own view here is that people have tended to think that because it is a legal issue, that only the courts have legal authority. People forget because of the teaching of Constitutional law, the way it's taught today, Wolf, that the president is an officer of the Constitution. He has a responsibility to execute the law. He is to take the law and execute the law in many occasions.
BLITZER: Listen to what that so-called Republican Senator Arlen Specter said the other day. Listen to this.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, BuzzFlash's hypocrite of the week: The initial claim to authority, from the resolution to authorize the use of force, I think is very, very thin. If the president had asked for authority in the Patriot Act, we would have had a determination, as to whether Congress wanted to give it to him. But to say that there was congressional intent in the resolution for force, I think is a stretch. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BENNETT: That's an issue of whether the president has that authority statutorily from that statute. My argument is that the president has it constitutionally. It's not Congress' to give him.
Under his Article II powers, the president has the authority, indeed, the responsibility to defend the people of the United States. I don't think he needs to get that from Congress. What's interesting is that although a number of critics, mostly Democrats, but as you point out, a few Republicans, who they said they're not sure about it, they don't agree with the president's use of it.
No one has moved to curtail his authority. People have been jumping all over themselves, Wolf, saying "If the president needs this, fine, we'll give it to him." And it is interesting, why hasn't anybody stepped forward and said, "Well, if he needs it and we don't think he has it now, we'll introduce legislation to give it to him," because they'd lose the political advantage.
BLITZER: Everybody should support our president! OK, here's where we tell the Demonrats and the liberal media to just shut up already about those hypothetical comments you made that were taken out of context. You were reported as saying that if you go ahead and abort all black babies, there will be a reduction in crime. It caused a huge stir. Since this is the first time you're joining me here on CNN, I want you to explain to our viewers what you were thinking because I've known you were many years. I know you're not a racist. And I just want our viewers to have an understanding of what you were saying.
BENNETT: Well this was -- first, I want to thank CNN for looking past this canard, or through this canard and taking me on. But I've had a number of controversies in my life and some of them, frankly deserved. This one was not deserved.
I was dealing with a hypothetical, talking about lowering crime rate by aborting babies in the black community. And that this was a hypothetical. Obviously it was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions and books.
But I brought it up as a hypothetical to point out how noxious it was. After having brought up the hypothetical, I said of course that would be a reprehensible and impossible thing to do, direct quote.
Well some of the media that replayed it played the hypothetical, but they didn't play my condemnation of the hypothetical. I'm a college professor, old college professor, I use hypotheticals.
And sometimes you bring up an extreme or ridiculous position in order to show how absurd it is. That was the point of it. So, it was based on a distortion. But more than that, Wolf, it was the whole thing, as it went on, was based on a distortion of my life.
I appreciate what you say about me. I went to Mississippi in 1997, I taught, I taught Martin Luther King letter from a Birmingham jail. I've been committed to civil rights and all anybody has to do is look at my life, my record and the work that we still do.
BLITZER: Bill Bennett, you are a hero. Welcome to CNN. I just love that you'll be spending a lot of time here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Kisses!!!
BENNETT: Thank you very much, great place to be.
BLITZER: Thank you very much. (OFFCAMERA) Ahhhhhh! Tissues, please?
Gawd. I watched that last night and thought I was going to puke. I may yet.
"Mmmmmmmnnnn!"
*****
"Truth no longer matters"
Cable news programs hurting America
"Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, former anchor at CNN. "Any criticism of the administration is regarded as hatred of the president and hatred of the country itself," he said.
Important issues, such as the prosecution of the war in Iraq at home and abroad, are being clouded over by "mud-wrestling" that skirts substance, he said. Consider what he called "the swift-boating of John Murtha," the Democratic congressman whose war record was smeared when he called for an exit strategy in Iraq. "Cable didn't search for the truth, but engaged in mock debates pitting those making the charges against Murtha's defenders," he said.
Important issues, such as the prosecution of the war in Iraq at home and abroad, are being clouded over by "mud-wrestling" that skirts substance, he said. Consider what he called "the swift-boating of John Murtha," the Democratic congressman whose war record was smeared when he called for an exit strategy in Iraq. "Cable didn't search for the truth, but engaged in mock debates pitting those making the charges against Murtha's defenders," he said.
Whores. Selling their professional integrity for the next little bit of attention, a cute nickname, a hot beef injection from the White House.
Why do you think John Kerry wants to filibuster Samuel Alito?
- this morning's poll at CNN.
Click to enlarge.
****
January 26, 2006
9/11 lie terrists 9/11 protect lie
September 11th changed evr'thing. 'Xept ah'm still a lying fuckwit
Guess who had a press con today!
Q: On the NSA eavesdropping program, there seems to be growing momentum in Congress to either modify the existing law or write some new law that would give you the latitude to do this, and at the same time, ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Would you be resistant to the notion of new laws if Congress were to give you what you need to conduct these operations?
BUNNYPANTS: The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack. I asked the very questions you asked, John, when we first got going. Let me tell you exactly how this happened. Right after September the 11th, blah blah blah everything changed terra 9/11 death blah
But, John, I want to make sure that people understand that if it -- if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it. {???????} And I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy? And it is. And it's legal. And we'll continue to brief Congress. And we review it a lot, and we review not only at the Justice Department, but with a good legal staff inside NSA.
Q: What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?
THE DICTATOR-TOT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties.
My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation.
Q: Do you know how many?
BUSH: I don't have any idea.
Q: Mr. President, you talked about Jack Abramoff in the context of pictures, but it may not necessarily just be about pictures. He also had some meetings with some of your staff. So you remember, you ran on the idea of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. So why are you letting your critics perhaps attack you and paint you with maybe a guilt by association? Why not just throw open your books and say, look, here is --
PREZNIT STUPID: There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors, and that's their job. And they will -- if they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look, and they're welcome to do so. There's a serious investigation that's going on.
Q: But, sir, don't you want to tell the American people look, as I promised, this White House isn't for sale and I'm not for sale?
CHUCKLES THE CLOWN: It's hard for me to say I didn't have pictures with the guy when I did. But I have also had pictures with thousands and thousands of people. I mean, people -- it's part of the job of the President to shake hands and -- with people and smile. (Laughter.) And I do.
Q: Members of your administration have said that the secret eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks. But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in this country for years, having domestic phone calls and emails. So how, specifically, can you say that?
THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF: Well, muh new best friend Michael Hayden said that because he believes that had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego to elsewhere we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack. And that's what he was referring to.
Q: They were domestic calls --
BUNNYPANTS: No, domestic outside -- we will not listen inside this country. It is a call from al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, either from inside the country out, or outside the country in, but not domestically.
Q: Can I ask you again, why won't you release the photos of yourself with Jack Abramoff?
THE BOY KING: I just answered the question.
Q: Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when the nation is at war, the President, by definition, can order measures that might not be acceptable or even, perhaps, legal in peacetime. And this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was "when the President does it, then that means it is not illegal," in the areas involving national security. So how do the two differ?
NIXON THE DUMBER: Well, I said yesterday that other Presidents have used the same authority I've had to use technology to protect the American people. Other Presidents -- most Presidents believe that during a time of war, that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us.
Secondly, in this case, there is an act passed by Congress in 2001 which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional power granted to Presidents, as well as, this case, a statutory power. And I'm intending to use that power -- Congress says, go ahead and conduct the war, we're not going to tell you how to do it. And part of winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and to find out where they are so we can protect the American people.
There's going to be -- there will be a constitution -- there will be a legal debate about whether or not I have the authority to do this; I'm absolutely convinced I do. Our Attorney General has been out describing why. And I'm going to continue using my authority. That's what the American people expect.
BUNNYPANTS: The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack. I asked the very questions you asked, John, when we first got going. Let me tell you exactly how this happened. Right after September the 11th, blah blah blah everything changed terra 9/11 death blah
But, John, I want to make sure that people understand that if it -- if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it. {???????} And I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy? And it is. And it's legal. And we'll continue to brief Congress. And we review it a lot, and we review not only at the Justice Department, but with a good legal staff inside NSA.
Q: What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?
THE DICTATOR-TOT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties.
My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation.
Q: Do you know how many?
BUSH: I don't have any idea.
Q: Mr. President, you talked about Jack Abramoff in the context of pictures, but it may not necessarily just be about pictures. He also had some meetings with some of your staff. So you remember, you ran on the idea of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. So why are you letting your critics perhaps attack you and paint you with maybe a guilt by association? Why not just throw open your books and say, look, here is --
PREZNIT STUPID: There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors, and that's their job. And they will -- if they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look, and they're welcome to do so. There's a serious investigation that's going on.
Q: But, sir, don't you want to tell the American people look, as I promised, this White House isn't for sale and I'm not for sale?
CHUCKLES THE CLOWN: It's hard for me to say I didn't have pictures with the guy when I did. But I have also had pictures with thousands and thousands of people. I mean, people -- it's part of the job of the President to shake hands and -- with people and smile. (Laughter.) And I do.
Q: Members of your administration have said that the secret eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks. But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in this country for years, having domestic phone calls and emails. So how, specifically, can you say that?
THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF: Well, muh new best friend Michael Hayden said that because he believes that had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego to elsewhere we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack. And that's what he was referring to.
Q: They were domestic calls --
BUNNYPANTS: No, domestic outside -- we will not listen inside this country. It is a call from al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, either from inside the country out, or outside the country in, but not domestically.
Q: Can I ask you again, why won't you release the photos of yourself with Jack Abramoff?
THE BOY KING: I just answered the question.
Q: Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when the nation is at war, the President, by definition, can order measures that might not be acceptable or even, perhaps, legal in peacetime. And this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was "when the President does it, then that means it is not illegal," in the areas involving national security. So how do the two differ?
NIXON THE DUMBER: Well, I said yesterday that other Presidents have used the same authority I've had to use technology to protect the American people. Other Presidents -- most Presidents believe that during a time of war, that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us.
Secondly, in this case, there is an act passed by Congress in 2001 which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional power granted to Presidents, as well as, this case, a statutory power. And I'm intending to use that power -- Congress says, go ahead and conduct the war, we're not going to tell you how to do it. And part of winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and to find out where they are so we can protect the American people.
There's going to be -- there will be a constitution -- there will be a legal debate about whether or not I have the authority to do this; I'm absolutely convinced I do. Our Attorney General has been out describing why. And I'm going to continue using my authority. That's what the American people expect.
What?
Walking slime-mold draining precious natural resources
Verminous, lying traitor Karl Rove 'has once again proved his ability to obliterate history in the cause of his president.'
"Rove is again playing the patriot game to salvage Bush's political position. This time he is attempting to turn Bush's domestic spying into a false issue of whether Democrats support gathering intelligence on terrorists." - Sidney Blumenthal, in the Guardian.
"I truly am not that concerned about him." - Smirky von Bunnypants on Osama bin Laden, 2002.
"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it." - Preznit Polldropping, 2006.
"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it." - Preznit Polldropping, 2006.
It's sort of ironic that Bush is using a freedom-hating terrist to defend his program to further erode our freedoms.*
*No, the other one. Bin Laden.
Biased, irresponsible, and offensive
Please visit an Open Letter To Chris Matthews and help boycott pMSNBC until the dye-and-lie-job apologizes for comparing Dems to Osama bin Laden:
we know for a fact that even the association with somebody who compares bush to a famous dictator results in national shunning (the moveon.org = hitler fiasco), it seems not only hypocritical, disingenuous and unfair of you to reverse the bigoted polarity here (liberals are murderous tyrants: ok; conservatives are murderous tyrants, not ok), but it's down right transparent that you are simply a tool of the administration's playbook.- from skippy's letter to damp, Bushkissing idiot Chris Matthews.
For Tweety.
****
Somebody's cranky...
Things starting to get to you a bit, Rick?
It seems a reporter approached [Senator/douchebag Rick] Santorum just as he got off the train and asked Santorum something to the effect of: "Can you tell me about the 'K Street Project'?"
Santorum's response?
He started screaming, according to our source. "It's just a meeting!", Santorum reportedly yelled. "What Harry Reid said Wednesday is a total lie!"
Santorum's response?
He started screaming, according to our source. "It's just a meeting!", Santorum reportedly yelled. "What Harry Reid said Wednesday is a total lie!"
Touch-ee! LOL
"And get this dog off my leg!"
****
"This is huge"
Liars - in 2002, the Bush misadministration opposed legislation to make it easier to wiretap under FISA.
AmericaBlog:
Bush chose to break the law when he had an alternative. And what's worse, this suggests that Bush feared the Supreme Court would never let him spy on Americans the degree to which he wanted, the court would find it unconstitutional, so that's why Bush never sought the change in the law proposed in 2002 - Bush thought it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So Bush chose to break the law in order to circumvent the Supreme Court enforcing the US Constitution.If the terrists "hate us for our freedoms" they should be loving the bejebus out of us now.
"Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"
- Presidental Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN, FEARMONGERING, PARTISAN ASSHAT and DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: When you‘re talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications. Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such. (END VIDEO CLIP)
KEITH OLBERMANN: For a reality check on that claim and everything else we heard from the Bush administration today, I‘m joined now by Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Ms. Martin, thanks for being with us tonight.
KATE MARTIN: Thank you.
OLBERMANN: That‘s a pretty bold claim there from General Hayden today, obviously an improvable one. What credibility is it given by experts in the field?
MARTIN: Well, you know, Vice President Cheney made the same statement, I think, in an effort to deflect the conversation from whether or not the president broke the law. I mean, what General Hayden said is that we would have detected al Qaeda operatives in the United States before 9/11. But, of course, the 9/11 commission found that they did detect two al Qaeda operatives, two of the hijackers, in the United States before 9/11, they knew they were al Qaeda, and they didn‘t do anything about it.
KEITH OLBERMANN: For a reality check on that claim and everything else we heard from the Bush administration today, I‘m joined now by Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Ms. Martin, thanks for being with us tonight.
KATE MARTIN: Thank you.
OLBERMANN: That‘s a pretty bold claim there from General Hayden today, obviously an improvable one. What credibility is it given by experts in the field?
MARTIN: Well, you know, Vice President Cheney made the same statement, I think, in an effort to deflect the conversation from whether or not the president broke the law. I mean, what General Hayden said is that we would have detected al Qaeda operatives in the United States before 9/11. But, of course, the 9/11 commission found that they did detect two al Qaeda operatives, two of the hijackers, in the United States before 9/11, they knew they were al Qaeda, and they didn‘t do anything about it.
Later....
MARTIN: And, you know, telling Congress, of course, doesn‘t matter, because the law says you may not wiretap without a warrant. And whether or not he told Congress doesn‘t make it legal.
Just answer the damn question, Scott
WH spokesliar Snott McClellan: You traitor...
Q: I have two questions that can be dismissed with a yes or no. One, is the President going to seek any legal -- more legal permission from Congress to spy on Americans without a warrant? And b)Are you such a dickhole at home?
McClellan: I've already previously answered this question with reporters and stated our view; the Attorney General stated it earlier today in some interviews. This is an important tool that helps to save lives by preventing attacks.
Q: The law says he has to seek a court warrant.
McClellan: -- it is labeled an international call --
Q: Why doesn't he seek a warrant? What's the big problem?
McClellan: Well, actually, we've walked through this repeatedly over the last few days. It's important for the American people to understand what the facts are. There is a lot of misinformation about --
Q: Why can't you seek a warrant?
McClellan: -- this program. And we do use the FISA tool, as well. That's an important tool, as well. But we have briefed members of Congress more than a dozen times on this. We continue to brief members of Congress in an appropriate manner. This is a highly classified program and it is a vital program to our nation's security. The 9/11 Commission criticized us for not connecting the dots --
Q: Is it vital to go through legal steps?
McClellan: This is helping us to connect the dots in a very targeted and focused way.
Q: Why can't he seek a warrant?
McClellan: It is about detecting and preventing attacks. FISA was created for a different time period. General Hayden walked through that yesterday; the Attorney General talked about it more. This is about moving with speed and agility, not some long-term period of time. It's about detecting --
Q: You can get one retroactively.
McClellan: -- it's about detecting and preventing attacks. And we are a nation at war, and the courts have upheld the President's authority to engage in surveillance. Surveillance is critical to prevailing in the war on terrorism.
Q: He doesn't have a blank check.
McClellan: And we talked with members of Congress about whether or not there needed to be legislation that reflects what the President's authority already is, and the congressional leaders felt that by doing so it could compromise this program. This is a vital program and it's important that we don't show the enemy our play book. And talking about it --
Q: Getting warrants doesn't show the enemy a play book.
McClellan: Okay. Next question.
McClellan: I've already previously answered this question with reporters and stated our view; the Attorney General stated it earlier today in some interviews. This is an important tool that helps to save lives by preventing attacks.
Q: The law says he has to seek a court warrant.
McClellan: -- it is labeled an international call --
Q: Why doesn't he seek a warrant? What's the big problem?
McClellan: Well, actually, we've walked through this repeatedly over the last few days. It's important for the American people to understand what the facts are. There is a lot of misinformation about --
Q: Why can't you seek a warrant?
McClellan: -- this program. And we do use the FISA tool, as well. That's an important tool, as well. But we have briefed members of Congress more than a dozen times on this. We continue to brief members of Congress in an appropriate manner. This is a highly classified program and it is a vital program to our nation's security. The 9/11 Commission criticized us for not connecting the dots --
Q: Is it vital to go through legal steps?
McClellan: This is helping us to connect the dots in a very targeted and focused way.
Q: Why can't he seek a warrant?
McClellan: It is about detecting and preventing attacks. FISA was created for a different time period. General Hayden walked through that yesterday; the Attorney General talked about it more. This is about moving with speed and agility, not some long-term period of time. It's about detecting --
Q: You can get one retroactively.
McClellan: -- it's about detecting and preventing attacks. And we are a nation at war, and the courts have upheld the President's authority to engage in surveillance. Surveillance is critical to prevailing in the war on terrorism.
Q: He doesn't have a blank check.
McClellan: And we talked with members of Congress about whether or not there needed to be legislation that reflects what the President's authority already is, and the congressional leaders felt that by doing so it could compromise this program. This is a vital program and it's important that we don't show the enemy our play book. And talking about it --
Q: Getting warrants doesn't show the enemy a play book.
McClellan: Okay. Next question.
WTF: Ummm, yes, Scott? Why can't he just get a fucking warrant?
Pic from firedoglake.
Senators in need of a spine
Well DUH. Just wake up, did you?
"When someone is threatening to beat you up, you don't hand him a bat." - BuzzFlash.
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
Jiminey-#ucking-criminey. Look who's talking! :: Insert sound of head banging on desk here ::
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination. ...
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
- Good gravy. From a better late than never NY Times opinion piece.
Meanwhile, incontinent traitor Boob Novak pulls a wrinkled, crusty page six of the GOP talking points out of his adult diaper and warns that 'politicizing' the vote on Alito may hurt Democrats. Har! You senile, drooling old gasbag. They sure aren't doing anything to help themselves, so what difference does it make?
I'm disgusted with everyone.
January 25, 2006
Henry VII's chapel found at Greenwich
I love this kind of stuff...
As muddy holes go, they don't get much more romantic. Beneath four feet of heavy south London clay, archaeologists have uncovered the remains of Henry VII's lost chapel at Greenwich.
The site is where he and a host of his Tudor successors - Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I - worshipped. The archaeologists may also have unearthed the spot where Henry VIII stood during his marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves.
The site is where he and a host of his Tudor successors - Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I - worshipped. The archaeologists may also have unearthed the spot where Henry VIII stood during his marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves.
- more here.
Fun fact: here's how the headline read over at RimJob's Home for Dripping Rectums: "Henry VII's chapel found at Greenwich (England)." Because the ones in Buttefuck, Montana and Moosehung, Ottawa are still missing. To this very day.
Governator: go #uck yourselves, gpukes
Good for him. I've got to give him credit for this one.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said yesterday he wouldn't fire his top staffer, Democrat Susan Kennedy, to appease Republican activists worried about his move toward the middle. "I will hire the people I want to hire because they are the best," he said. "I will keep Susan Kennedy exactly where she is."
Mike Schroeder, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, said conservatives plan to introduce a resolution taking away the party's endorsement unless Schwarzenegger fires Kennedy by March 15. He said the resolution was largely a symbolic move, but it would give a voice to conservatives' disappointment.
"They are just frustrated with him. They've had it," he said.
Mike Schroeder, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, said conservatives plan to introduce a resolution taking away the party's endorsement unless Schwarzenegger fires Kennedy by March 15. He said the resolution was largely a symbolic move, but it would give a voice to conservatives' disappointment.
"They are just frustrated with him. They've had it," he said.
Eat it, you #ucking thugs.
Call the wahhhhhmbulance.
*****
Buk buk buk buk buk
White House refuses to turn over embarrassing Katrina papers to investigators.
"We expect there to be transparency. People who have something to hide make us nervous." - George W. Beetbrains, Alaska, Feb. 16, 2002.
The Bush misadministration, citing panic and uncontrollable defecation and vomiting the 'confidentiality of executive branch communications,' said Tuesday that it would not turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before Congressional committees investigating the storm response. Heckuva job, guys. Right. What a stupid #ucking excuse. And you have the nerve to tell us that if we have nothing to hide we shouldn't be bothered by the Patriot Act? Eat me.
Accountabilitude.
Earle continues probing asshole
Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor targeting corrupt scumbag Tom DeLay, has issued a second round of subpoenas to businessmen, seeking records surrounding donations to the indicted, unethical slimeball and the disgraced former congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
Bush the Incompetent
The Chimpy McFlightsuit Legacy:
Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute.
Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives.
In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups.
How could a president get these things so wrong? Incompetence may describe this presidency, but it doesn't explain it. For that, historians may need to turn to the seven deadly sins: to greed, in understanding why Bush entrusted his new drug entitlement to a financial mainstay of modern Republicanism. To sloth, in understanding why Incurious George has repeatedly ignored the work of experts whose advice runs counter to his desires.
Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives.
In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups.
How could a president get these things so wrong? Incompetence may describe this presidency, but it doesn't explain it. For that, historians may need to turn to the seven deadly sins: to greed, in understanding why Bush entrusted his new drug entitlement to a financial mainstay of modern Republicanism. To sloth, in understanding why Incurious George has repeatedly ignored the work of experts whose advice runs counter to his desires.
- from a WaPo op-ed.
Great moments in television
"I think President George W. Bush, I think Cheney, I think Rumsfeld, I think all of these people have lost any moral integrity."
Harry Belafonte embarrasses WH whore and chronic masturbator Wolf "wetnap" Blitzer.
They're so poor - and so Jewy…
BLITZER: And you think that what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to, you know, some US citizens suspected of terrorism is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews?
BELAFONTE: Well, if you're taking people out of a country and spiriting them someplace else, and they're being tortured, and they're not being charged, so they don't know what it is that they have done, it may not have been directly inside the Department of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system -- it's what the system does. It's what all these different divisions have -- have begun to reveal in their collective. I mean, my phones are tapped. OK? My mail can be opened. They don't even need a court warrant to come and do that, as we once were -- were required to do. All of these things...
BLITZER: But -- but no one has taken you or anyone else, as far as I can tell, to an extermination camp, and by the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, even millions, decided to kill them, which is what the Nazis did.
BELAFONTE: Well, Mr. Blitzer, let me say this to you. Perhaps, just perhaps, had the Jews of Germany and people spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon, perhaps we would never have had...
BLITZER: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Are you blaming -- are you blaming the Jews of Germany for what Hitler did to them?
BELAFONTE: No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is that if an awakened citizenry -- if an awakened citizenry, begins to oppose the first inkling of the subversion of government, of the subversion of our democracy, then, perhaps, an early warning would have saved the world a lot of what we all experienced. I'm not accusing the Jews at all.
BLITZER: Well, I just heard you say perhaps if the Jews of Germany had done something earlier, then, that might not have happened. That's what -- what I thought you were getting at.
BELAFONTE: Well, what I was getting at really was that, if all citizens, the Jewish community, the Christian community and all else, had taken a very early aggressive stand, rather than somehow suggesting or thinking or feeling that this would have gone away, we might have found that the -- Germany would have been in a far different place than it wound up in.
BELAFONTE: Well, if you're taking people out of a country and spiriting them someplace else, and they're being tortured, and they're not being charged, so they don't know what it is that they have done, it may not have been directly inside the Department of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system -- it's what the system does. It's what all these different divisions have -- have begun to reveal in their collective. I mean, my phones are tapped. OK? My mail can be opened. They don't even need a court warrant to come and do that, as we once were -- were required to do. All of these things...
BLITZER: But -- but no one has taken you or anyone else, as far as I can tell, to an extermination camp, and by the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, even millions, decided to kill them, which is what the Nazis did.
BELAFONTE: Well, Mr. Blitzer, let me say this to you. Perhaps, just perhaps, had the Jews of Germany and people spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon, perhaps we would never have had...
BLITZER: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Are you blaming -- are you blaming the Jews of Germany for what Hitler did to them?
BELAFONTE: No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is that if an awakened citizenry -- if an awakened citizenry, begins to oppose the first inkling of the subversion of government, of the subversion of our democracy, then, perhaps, an early warning would have saved the world a lot of what we all experienced. I'm not accusing the Jews at all.
BLITZER: Well, I just heard you say perhaps if the Jews of Germany had done something earlier, then, that might not have happened. That's what -- what I thought you were getting at.
BELAFONTE: Well, what I was getting at really was that, if all citizens, the Jewish community, the Christian community and all else, had taken a very early aggressive stand, rather than somehow suggesting or thinking or feeling that this would have gone away, we might have found that the -- Germany would have been in a far different place than it wound up in.
BELAFONTE: Mr. Blitzer, you have access to a lot of information. And you have decided to ignore it in order to resort to all-out whoring for the WH instead. May God have mercy on your tiny, shriveled, blackened soul. You #ucking tart.
"Harry handled it much better than I know I would have. I'd have been forced to stop my discussion and explanation to ask Blitzer when he expected to be reading and comprehending on a 2nd grade level, then give him a patronizingly slow, condescending lesson in basic rhetoric, probably using any writing utensils and paper to draw pictures for him."- Jeff, commenting at Brad Blog.
"Nnnngghhhhhh!"
****
Look! I have new genitals!
A Washington Post editorial actually calls on the White House to come clean about Preznit Integritude's meetings with indicted criminal Jack Abramoff.
[A]sking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government. Whatever White House officials did or didn't do, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff was up to no good and therefore every reason the public ought to know with whom he was meeting.
[WH spokesliar Snott] McClellan dismisses requests for the information as an effort to play "partisan politics" - but Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of stonewalling if the situation were reversed. We can say that with confidence because history proves it. During the 1996 scandal over foreign fundraising in the Clinton White House, Republicans demanded -- and obtained, though not without a fight -- extensive information about White House coffees and other meetings, including photos and videotapes.
[G]et all of Mr. Abramoff's dealings with the Bush White House and the Bush administration out in the open -- now.
[WH spokesliar Snott] McClellan dismisses requests for the information as an effort to play "partisan politics" - but Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of stonewalling if the situation were reversed. We can say that with confidence because history proves it. During the 1996 scandal over foreign fundraising in the Clinton White House, Republicans demanded -- and obtained, though not without a fight -- extensive information about White House coffees and other meetings, including photos and videotapes.
[G]et all of Mr. Abramoff's dealings with the Bush White House and the Bush administration out in the open -- now.
There he goes again
9/11 fear fear terra 9/11 fear death 9/11 fear terra death 9/11 you'reallgonnadie
There may be depths to which Karl Rove wouldn't sink, but it's difficult to imagine what they might be.
Mr. Rove, President Pinhead's slimy chief political adviser, defended the administration's domestic eavesdropping program last week by saying that "President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."
What rubbish. Once again, when this administration is challenged, it lashes out at the patriotism of its critics.
Mr. Rove (who is being investigated by a federal grand jury for possible involvement in the unpatriotic act of leaking the name of a CIA operative) would not be able to identify a single "important Democrat" who opposes monitoring all al-Qaida communications. He didn't even try.
Mr. Rove, President Pinhead's slimy chief political adviser, defended the administration's domestic eavesdropping program last week by saying that "President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."
What rubbish. Once again, when this administration is challenged, it lashes out at the patriotism of its critics.
Mr. Rove (who is being investigated by a federal grand jury for possible involvement in the unpatriotic act of leaking the name of a CIA operative) would not be able to identify a single "important Democrat" who opposes monitoring all al-Qaida communications. He didn't even try.
- from an editorial here. Mostly.
January 24, 2006
9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
If you're not with us, you're treasonous, anti-'Merican traitors who love terrists.
Karl Rove: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree {Name one. - Ed.}.
John Kerry (mostly): You know, Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he’s killed by Karl Rove and his crowd. And all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it. And what he’s trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don’t want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That’s a lie.
We’re prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer. But we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. And what I believe, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without ignoring the Constitution of the country, you lying #ucksack. By the way, how's that Fitzgerald investigation going, dipshit?
John Kerry (mostly): You know, Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he’s killed by Karl Rove and his crowd. And all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it. And what he’s trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don’t want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That’s a lie.
We’re prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer. But we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. And what I believe, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without ignoring the Constitution of the country, you lying #ucksack. By the way, how's that Fitzgerald investigation going, dipshit?
I'd rather be golfing
Fat Tony Scalia says "#uck you" to SCrOTUS headcheese John Roberts, goes off on junket to play tennis at "one of the country's top resorts" with his Federalist Society buds.
Heckuva job, III
Newly released documents show the White House got detailed warnings 48 hours before Katrina hit, including descriptions of flooding, breached levees, Bush being an oblivious dickhole.
Heckuva job, II
Oh, isn't he cute! What an engaging, personable guy! Whore media replays Bunnypants' "Brokeback Mountain" clip over and over and over. Well, they certainly weren't going to show this one, where he comes across as an absolute stump...
Heckuva job
Pakistani Prime Minister brands as "bizarre" WH claims that airstrike killed members of Al Qaeda despite an overwhelming lack of evidence. Why does he hate America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
