We'll never claim to be fair and
balanced, just honest and trustworthy
October 17, 2007
Missouri's right wingers
threaten to impeach Secretary of State Robin Carnahan because she's
following the law.
By Joe Sudbay for AMERICABlog
For too many years, right wing Republican Secretaries
of State have done the bidding of the lunatics in their party. Think
Katherine Harris in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio.
In Missouri, there's a Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, who doesn't
kowtow and cater to every diabolical idea promulgated by the nuts. And,
they really hate her for it.
In 2006, Carnahan rejected the biased language of the right wing's
ballot initiatives. Every time they challenged her in court, the nuts
lost.
These are the same anti-stem cell zealots who attacked Michael
J. Fox when he got involved in the Missouri Senate Race over the
stem cell issue. (Keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh, who openly mocked
Fox's Parkinson, has deep roots in Missouri.)
Anyway, fast forward to 2007. The anti-stem cell crowd is coming back
with another anti-science, anti-health, pre-historic initiative. They
have a new plan that would repeal the referendum that passed in 2006
(but don't want anyone to know.) Fired
Up Missouri documents the foibles of "the anti-cure
crowd."
Again, Carnahan isn't letting the stem cell opponents confuse the
voters. Those religious fanatic types hate it when they don't get their
way.
[Curt] Mercadante says that while the courts have given
the Secretary of State some latitude in editing ballot summary
language submitted to the office, the latitude has been surpassed in
this instance. He says all options, including an effort to impeach the
Secretary of State, will be considered.
So, they want to impeach Robin for following the law.
Now, that's insane:
The Secretary of State's Office could not disagree more
with Cures Without Cloning on its claim that the summary language is
confusing to voters. Secretary Robin Carnahan's Chief of Staff Mindy
Mazur says the summary is completely fair and in accordance with state
law.
Mazur says it is not uncommon to have challenges to initiative
petition ballot titles, pointing out there is a process laid out for
the challenge in law. She adds that in 2006 there were court
challenges to three different summary statements and in each case the
summary statemant was upheld as sufficient and fair.
We all get caught up in the Presidential race and the
battles for House and Senate seats.
But a lot of the day-to-day work gets done on the front lines by people
like Robin Carnahan. It's just so important to win elections in key
states like Missouri for key offices like Secretary of State. The
Republicans have known that for years. State elections really matter.
Robin is running for re-election
next year. And, she needs to win again.
10 Things I Would Like
to Ask the Presidential Candidates
By Amy Branham for Amy's
Head
If I had the chance, here are the questions I would ask, the things
that are important to me:
1. What are you going to do about restoring habeus corpus? Right now
the President can declare anyone an “enemy combatant” and they can
be held indefinitely without charge or trial.
2. What are you going to do about the illegal wiretapping and spying
on American citizens? I hear now that this extends also to our banking
and internet records.
3. What are you going to do about American’s budget deficit? Add to
this question, how will you help the middle and lower class in this
country? What are you trade policies with other countries?
4. What are your plans as far as changing our healthcare system? I’m
not talking about making health insurance mandatory – that makes
just about as much sense as a hole in my head.
5. When will you end the war/illegal occupation of Iraq?
6. How soon do you plan to close Guantanamo Bay?
7. What are you going to do about the illegal rendition and torture of
terrorism suspects?
8. How will you fight the so-called Global War on Terror?
9. What will you do to reunify this country?
10. What will you do about Global Warming?
I’m sure there are many other questions. But note, while I do care
about gay rights and marriage, while I do care about a woman’s right
to have an abortion, I do not think these are things that should make
or break a Presidential candidate. Those are things that should be
left to the choice of the individual. I want to know what a
Presidential Candidate is going to do to help this country in the long
run because the next President will make or break this country for
good.
Peace,
Amy
I haven't had much time for blogging lately. My son finally got
Internet with only 7 weeks left in Baghdad so most of my blogging time
is taken up on IM. What little time there is. But that's the way it
goes. Ebb and flow. I'm sure it will come back around.
I just finished reading INFIDEL BY Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I wonder if any
of you have read it? The author tells her story raised in a
traditional Muslim family. We follow her journey as she questions
these teachings and finally overcomes them and becomes very outspoken
about Islam which puts her in alot of danger. I am not good at giving
a synopsis but I couldn't put it down. I found it to be a fascinating
and courageous journey that she has taken.
Pedaling Backwards Through Life
By Carol for Carol
for Peace
Today I was sitting at a stoplight. The street that I was waiting to
cross is pretty busy - three lanes in either direction. As I sat at the
light, this is what I saw (And I am not kidding you):
A man rode a bike past me, but he was riding backwards down the six-lane
street. I don't mean that he was going west in an eastbound lane. I mean
that he was sitting on the bike correctly and he was going east while
facing west. He was pedaling backwards. He was in traffic, almost
keeping up. He kept looking back, which was really front, to be sure
that he didn't run into anything. Maybe this is some kind of new
bike-riding technique that I am not aware of, and you are thinking,
"Gee, Carol, where have you been?".
Let me know if you spend your biking hours going backwards. I have a few
questions I'd like to ask you.
Focusing on the past while moving toward the future just doesn't seem
like the best use of one's energy to me.
But then again, I suppose that many of us have been known to do that
quite often.
A BLOG WORLD REPORT
TIP
Are you interested in seeing what the FBI has on you? Then I may
have just the web site for you.
'The real possibility that Giuliani might be the
Republican nominee led a group of religious conservatives, who met in
Salt Lake City on Sept. 29 under the leadership of James C. Dobson of
Focus on the Family, to consider a third-party alternative.'
Now, wouldn't THAT be a lovely kick-in-the-teeth to the
Republican Party?
My idea of heaven on earth would be for the fundies to splinter off and
found their own party. Then the dems could be set for a long tenure while
the 2 opposition parties fought between themselves before finding their
bases again -- assuming they ever did.
That could give the country the breathing space it needs to find its way
back to sanity.
May Giuliani hang onto his lead!
[Of course, we may have to break out the whip and the chair, ourselves, to
keep Nader at bay if Clinton gets the nod. But, hopefully, we've learned
our lesson during the last eight years.]
This phrase was coined by Naomi
Klein. Two recent examples of disaster capitalism: Hurricane Katrina
provided an opportunity to close down housing projects in New Orleans; and
the chaos in Iraq has made it possible to ram through an oil privatization
law.
For years, global corporations have been thriving on national economies
that are in meltdown. And to complete the circle, these meltdowns are
often created or exacerbated by the IMF and the World Bank.
Using Katrinagate as an example, Klein says: “I was in New Orleans when
the city was still flooded. I was interviewing lobbyists who were already
camped out at the state legislature building in Baton Rouge, talking about
all the tax cuts they were going to get, and the new labor flexibility,
and what a great opportunity this was…There was a great deal of
excitement.”
The term “reconstruction” is just a euphemism for a war on the public
sector. In present-day New Orleans: “The public housing projects are
boarded up and stand empty. You have condo developers circling. Their
largest public hospital, Charity Hospital, is empty. This was the hospital
that was treating the uninsured. The New Orleans public education system
is now the country's leading laboratory in the charter school model…All
of that happened, not because there was a community consensus for it, but
because the disaster was expertly exploited by politicians, think tanks,
and lobbyists to push through radical policies in the chaos after the
disaster. That's disaster capitalism.”
She continues: “New Orleans is a laboratory for the corporatization of
disaster response. You had Carnival Cruise ships providing housing. You
had the big contractors from Iraq such as Bechtel building privatized
trailer parks guarded by private security. What we're seeing is that,
first, disasters are used to push through the radical privatization of
hospitals, schools, roads, and so on.”
And the parallels between Iraqmire and Katrinagate: “Many of us in New
Orleans who had been to Iraq felt that the Green Zone had just been lifted
out and moved to the Gulf Coast…The parallels were very striking. There
were the same contractors — Blackwater-Halliburton-Bechtel. The point of
this is that disaster zones are laboratories. They're testing grounds. In
the chaos of this moment, you have these leaps forward for the
privatization agenda. What was Blackwater doing there? They claim that
they had just seen the disaster on television and wanted to help, right?
But this was an extraordinary incursion into what we think of as a core
state function. Why wasn't the National Guard there? Where were the local
authorities?”
And referring to the “reconstruction” in Iraq, she says: “The dream
of building a model state in someone else's land is a deeply dangerous and
racist dream, and a violent dream.”
Cheney's Law and the Breakdown of the
Constitution
By Ron Chusid for Liberal
Values
Frontline is back for another season of documentaries and
starts out strong, once again doing the reporting which most of the
mainstream media fails to do. This week’s episode (available for view on
line) is on Cheney’s
Law. The documentary shows how Dick Cheney had the goal of expanding
the power of the Executive Branch ever since the days of seeing Congress
investigate and limit the powers of Gerald Ford and later Ronald Reagan.
Cheney is shown urging previous presidents to ignore the Constitutional
checks on the power of the president, but it wasn’t until George Bush
that he had a president willing to ignore the rule of law. The attacks of
9/11 provided the perfect opportunity for Cheney to act upon his beliefs
as he argued at the time that we must become a government of men and not
law.
Much of what is reported in the film about Mr. Cheney’s efforts to
encroach on Congressional and judicial autonomy since the attacks on the
World Trade Center will already be familiar to readers of liberal blogs
(particularly the lawyer Marty Lederman’s postings on Balkinization (balkin.blogspot.com)
and the meticulously detailed articles on the vice president’s role
written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker (now a reporter for The New York
Times) and published in The Washington Post over the summer. (Both Mr.
Gellman and Mr. Lederman deliver trenchant anecdotes and analysis in the
documentary.)
But that is almost entirely beside the point. “Cheney’s Law” is
an exemplary exercise in synthesis that displays a reserved tone and
still manages to feel like a riveting political thriller as it diagrams
the ways in which the vice president’s vision was often so seamlessly
assimilated.
Of particular interest is a lengthy interview with the conservative
law professor Jack Goldsmith. He oversaw the Justice Department’s
Office of Legal Counsel only to come to blows with the administration
when he challenged that vision, refusing to support the National
Security Agency wiretapping program that required reauthorization. “I
went as far as I could,” Mr. Goldsmith, who has recently written a
book called “The Terror Presidency,” economically recounts. “But
at some point the legal arguments ran out.”
The full interview with Jack Goldsmith is available
on line. During the interview, he discussed the view of virtually
unlimited executive power which arose after 9/11:
[What was your sense of Yoo’s Sept.
25, 2001 memo on the president’s constitutional powers in the war
on terror?]
… In some respects it was an unremarkable document, in the respects
that it basically said that the president had very broad authority to
use military force to protect the nation from attacks from terrorists.
And it impressively marshaled precedents going back decades, and even
into the 19th century, that articulated the executive’s view of its
very broad powers. …
The truly remarkable thing about the opinion was in the last
paragraph or two, where after articulating the idea that the president
had all of these broad powers without the need for Congress’s support,
it also said that Congress could not restrict the president’s powers.
So it went beyond the idea that the president didn’t need Congress’s
authorization, and said that there was nothing the Congress could do to
stop the president from doing these things. That was the remarkable part
of the opinion. …
Dick Cheney and George Bush are trying to reshape the nature of our
government in an alarming manner. One question we face in choosing a
successor in 2008 is whether they can be trusted to respect the
Constitution or whether they will continue to exercise expanded powers.
Today's middle east and world
chaos status as the world reacts to Bush's warmongering and new world
order!
By James Joiner for An
Average American Patriot
Putin and Ahmadinejad meet in Inti Bush Rally!
First: .Israel and Palestinian negotiators are involved in the most
serious effort in "many, many years" to try to end the Mideast
conflict, said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday.
"Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state and
it's time for Israel to live in the security that is going to come with a
peaceful and democratic neighbor," Rice said.
A day after meeting with Israeli leaders, Rice met in the West Bank with
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and said she's pushing both sides to
work "intensely" toward agreeing on a "serious, substantive
and concrete" framework for a November peace conference in Annapolis,
Maryland. During a joint news conference with Rice, Abbas indicated his
negotiators have already agreed on some issues with Israel, but he did not
specify which ones.
Rice
says the time for a Palestinian State is now That's nice but this is
in direct conflict with Iran and Islamist interests. It will only end one
way and it is more obvious every day as Bush's Forever wars take shape.
While Rice is working against Iran's voiced interests Putin is in Iran to
show his support. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin has been told
about a plot to assassinate him during a visit to Iran this week, a
Kremlin spokeswoman said Sunday. But that will not deter him. Interfax
news agency, citing a source in Russia's special services, said suicide
terrorists had been trained to carry out the assassination.
A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, denied any
such plot had been uncovered, characterizing the news as disinformation
spread by Iran's adversaries. "These sort of reports are completely
baseless and in direction with psychological operations of enemies of
relations between Iran and Russia" Hosseini said in a statement.
Kremlin
claims plot on putin , he still visits Iran as much at stake Myself I
wouldn't doubt it and that Bushco was behind it somehow as Bush's friend
Vlad is turning out to be his most important enemy and will along with
China fight his new world order plans.
Iran should be allowed to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful
purposes, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday. "The
Iranians are cooperating with Russian nuclear agencies and the main
objectives are peaceful objectives," he said. Russia is building
Iran's first nuclear power plant and has resisted moves by the U.S. and
its allies to impose stronger U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush
administration's stance that "all options" must be kept "on
the table" in confronting the threats posed by Iran -- a reference to
the option of using military action against the long-time U.S. adversary. as
Putin reiterates support for Iran I just want to point out that Putin
said Iran's main objectives are peaceful. We seem to have accepted that
verbiage and it covers Putin in the future but what about those other
objectives?
While there President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia told a summit meeting of
five Caspian Sea nations in Iran today that any use of military force in
the region was unacceptable and in a declaration the countries agreed that
none of them would allow their territories to be used as a base for
launching military strikes against any of the others. “We should not
even think of making use of force in this region,” Mr. Putin said.
Mr. Putin’s comments and the declaration come at a time when France and
the United States have refused to rule out military action to halt
Iran’s nuclear energy program, which they believe masks a desire to
develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is solely for peaceful
purposes. Putin arrived in Tehran today for meetings with President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and leaders from three other nearby Caspian
Sea nations that have rich oil and gas resources, promising to use
diplomacy to try to resolve the international debate over Iran’s nuclear
program.
He was the first Kremlin leader to travel to Iran since 1943, when Stalin
attended a wartime summit meeting with Churchill and Roosevelt. His
statements, which were consistent with his past positions cautioning
against military action against Iran, were nonetheless stark in their
setting and firmly emphasized his differences with the United States over
the extent of Iran’s threat and the means to counter it.
“Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of
force as a possibility,” Mr. Putin said. “This is very important. We
must not submit to other states in the case of aggression or some other
kind of military action directed against one of the Caspian countries.” While
in Iran Putin warns Bush against attack The war drums are beating!
Caspian Sea states declared in Tehran on Tuesday they would not let their
soil be used for an attack on any of them, an apparent response to
speculation the United States could resort to force in its nuclear row
with Iran. The Islamic Republic is embroiled in a standoff with Western
nations which accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons, a charge Tehran
denies. Washington has refused to rule out military action if diplomacy
fails to resolve the row.
The declaration followed a speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin
calling on the Caspian nations not to let any third country use their
territory for an attack, a comment apparently directed at former Soviet
state Azerbaijan. The U.S. military has inspected airfields in Azerbaijan,
which has a partnership deal with NATO, amid Russian media speculation
they could be planning to use the facilities in a possible strike on Iran.
Azeri officials deny any such plan.
Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan said "under no
circumstances will they allow (the use of their) territories by third
countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the
member states." Also in the final declaration, they acknowledged the
rights of all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- which
includes Iran -- to develop peaceful nuclear energy. says
Caspian States will not be used for the attack on Iran Sides in this
war are taking shape and the drumbeats are beating.
Meanwhile Turkey is getting sick of having its citizens killed and is
starting to run out of patience. Turkish troops shelled farmland around a
half-dozen villages in northern Iraq from across the tense border, an
Iraqi Kurdish official said Sunday, in what the Turkish military called
retaliation for weekend attacks by Kurdish rebels.
Turkey's military reported Saturday that Kurdish separatist guerrillas
attacked villages on its side of the border late Friday, wounding one
soldier near the village of Yemisli. "The Turkish military responded
to these unacceptable attacks and will continue to respond," a
military statement said. meanwhile
amidst mutual attacks across Iraq Turkey Border With 60,000 of Nato's
2nd largest military on its border it better be very concerned.
Iraq on Tuesday urged Turkey to refrain from launching military action
against Kurdish separatists based in Iraqi territory and called for urgent
talks between the two nations to find a solution to the crisis. Earlier,
Tariq Al-Hashimi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents, arrived in Turkey to
meet Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul in an
effort to "defuse" tense relations between Ankara and Baghdad.
Meanwhile Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh issued a statement
calling for "urgent dialogue" between Turkey and Iraq and a
"diplomatic solution" to the tensions, sparked by recent attacks
in Turkey by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. The statement urged
Turkey "not to resort to military solutions in dealing with terrorist
threats that target its interests."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was also due to hold emergency
talks with his ministers Tuesday, said his government was ready for
"urgent dialogue sessions" with senior Turkish officials.
"Turkey would act with common sense and determination when necessary
and when the time is ripe," Erdogan said. "The only target is
the PKK terrorist organization. No other group is our target," Cicek
said. "Everyone who lives in Iraq are our brothers and our friends.
We hope that peace comes to Iraq and to our areas without a need to use
this option." Iraq
calls for urgent Turkey talk
Meanwhile just a reminder, Turkish gunners have been shelling into Iraq
setting their friends fields and orchards ablaze so tempers are running
thin and time is running out here too.
I am very upset as you all are. This is one hell of a mess Bush is happily
creating and he is proud of it. I am sickened thinking how this will all
in fact turn out and our so called leaders think they are in control and
can prevent as they play their childish games.
Iceberg Lettuce's Fundraising ...
By Tengrain for Mock, Paper, Scissors
…goes big time.
(AP Photo/Cheryl Senter)
“Face down, hands above your heads. Gimme your lunch money, and no
one gets hurt.”
Guess
who is turning one year old?It’s the Military
Commissions Act, where we all became complicit in torture! This also
marked the complete overthrow of habeas corpus (the right to be charged
with a crime in a courtroom and present a defense) by our elected
officials - who knew they cared so little for our Bill of Rights? Well,
there is no doubt anymore, is there? I know for a fact that protecting
free speech or our rights to privacy (not being spied on without a
warrant) is definitely not a concern of Rep. Shuler.
Of course, the new Democratic majority elected in November 2006 has done
nothing about the Military Commissions Act – but then it could not
have passed in the first place without the Democrat's help.
On October 17th the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was
bound, gagged and detained forever.And every
US
citizen became a torturer. The photo above came from Amnesty
International.
Now, excuse me while I go get sick.
BLOG RECOMMENDATION
Do you know who the
oldest blogger in the world is? Her name is Olive Riley and this
weekend she will be celebrating her 108th birthday. Visit her blog
at The Life
Of Riley.
90 in House Say No More $ for Bush's War
By TomCat for Politics
Plus
The occupation in Iraq will begin to end on the day that
Democrats -- and responsible Republicans -- in Congress decide to stop
meeting the demands of the Bush-Cheney administration for more money to
fund their imperial endeavor along with the massive war-profiteering by
administration-linked firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater.
This is a simple reality. But it remains one that most members of
Congress, including many Democrats who should know better, fail to
recognize.
The essential document in the current Iraq debate is a letter of
commitment, now endorsed by 89 members of the House, that says the
signers "will only support appropriating additional funds
for U.S. military operations in Iraq during FY08 and beyond for the
protection and safe redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq before the
end of President Bush's term in office."
In an important new letter to President Bush, the 89 representatives
-- 88 Democrats and Texas Republican Ron Paul -- say, "More than
3,800 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 28,000 have
been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed
or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been
displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated
into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500
billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our
nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this
military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil
revenues.
"We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American
people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations
in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue
to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on
Americans currently and for generations to come."
At a time when the president is requesting an additional $50 billion
to maintain his escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through
next April, on top of the $145 billion he requested to continue military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2008 fiscal year, the
letter says what all of Congress should be saying: No.
What is now the most important anti-war initiative in the Congress
began in July when the following House members signed on: Rep. Lynn
Woolsey ☼ (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee ☼ (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters
☼ (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt ☼ (NJ);
Rep. Maurice Hinchey ☼ (NY); Rep. Diane Watson ☼ (CA); Rep.
Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank ☼ (MA); Rep. Danny Davis ☼
(IL); Rep. John Conyers ☼ (MI); Rep. John Hall ☼ (NY); Rep.
Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez ☼ (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush
☼ (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel ☼ (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep.
Paul Hodes ☼ (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay ☼ (MO); Rep. Earl
Blumenauer ☼ (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn ☼ (MD); Rep. Bill
Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield
(NC); Rep. Hilda Solis ☼ (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney ☼ (NY);
Rep. Jerrold Nadler ☼ (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve
Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep.
Alcee Hastings ☼ (FL); Rep. James McGovern ☼ (MA); Rep.
Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson ☼
(IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez ☼ (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva ☼ (AZ);
Rep. John Olver ☼ (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim
McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah ☼ (PA);
Rep. Frank Pallone ☼ Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete
Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty
McCollum ☼ (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette
☼ (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch ☼ (MA); Rep. Artur Davis ☼
(AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne ☼ (NJ); Rep.
Emanuel Cleaver ☼ (MO); Rep. John Lewis ☼ (GA); Rep. Yvette
Clarke ☼ (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie ☼ (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore
(WI); Rep. Keith Ellison ☼ (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin ☼ (WI);
Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott ☼ (GA); Rep. Luis
Gutierrez ☼ (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah
Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Since Congress returned from its summer break, the following members
have joined this burgeoning effort to end the occupation: Rep. Chris
Murphy (CT); Rep. Jesse Jackson ☼ Jr. (IL); Rep. Corrine Brown
☼ (FL); Rep. Bennie Thompson ☼ (MS); Rep. Mel Watt (NC);
Rep. Gregory Meeks ☼ (NY); Rep. David Loebsack ☼ (IA); Rep.
Anthony Weiner ☼ (NY); Rep. Dennis Kucinich ☼ (OH); Rep.
Peter DeFazio ☼ (OR); Rep. Sam Farr ☼ (CA); Rep. Henry
Waxman ☼ (D-CA); Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA); Rep. John Tierney
☼ (D-CA); Rep. Lloyd Doggett ☼ (D-TX); Rep. Anna Eshoo
☼ (D-CA); Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones ☼ (D-OH); Rep. Richard
Neal ☼ (D-MA); and Rep. Louise Slaughter ☼ (D-NY).
Unfortunately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and
other key Democratic leaders have so far refused to commit to the only
meaningful challenge to the Bush administration's war-without-end
demands... [emphasis added]
I urge support for all these members of
Congress. If Pelosi and the leaders refuse to obey their boss, we
the people, they must be removed from their leadership role.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of
chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture."
-- Henry Kolm, 90, part of a U.S. intelligence team that interrogated
Nazis POWs during WWII
What? you can catch more bees with honey then you can with vinegar? I
can't believe it. Does Georgy W. know about this? (Probably not he doesn't
know much about anything else)
Mukasey repudiated the 2002 "torture memo" that was signed by
the Office of Legal Counsel Chief, Jay Bybee. In fact, Mukasey went so far
as to say that he is unaware of any authority given to the President to
override legal restrictions on torture. If you had a chance to see the
documentary "Cheney's Law", you will see that he, David
Addington, and John Yoo have a different view on that. They believe that
our so-called "war on terror" gives the President the right to
possess broad powers during "wartime". The CIA are a bit antsy
about the Justice Department not recognizing these broad powers and fear
they will be prosecuted for using torture, as recommended by the
President.
Mukasey referenced the photographs taken by U.S. troops who liberated the
Nazi concentration camps in 1945 to document the "barbarism" the
U.S. opposed. "They didn't do that so we could duplicate what we
oppose." Beyond legal restrictions barring torture clearly, torture
is "antithetical to what this country stands for."
DOES MICHAEL MUKASEY THINK THAT A U.S. ATTORNEY
CANNOT ENFORCE A CITATION OF CONTEMPT FROM CONGRESS AGAINST A WHITE HOUSE
OFFICIAL HIDING BEHIND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?
Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten, have all refused to testify to
Congress or turn over documents regarding the U.S. attorney firings. Votes
of contempt and a citation are needed to begin a criminal case against
these people.
Mukasey played games with his answer. He said that although it's not a
foregone conclusion, it would depend on whether the U.S. attorney can find
if the executive privilege is "unreasonable". He hopes that he
will never have to make that decision. So...he doesn't want to deal with a
tough issue, or he doesn't want to do battle with Bush?
MUKASEY WON'T COMMIT TO CLOSING GUANTANAMO
Earlier this year, one of the first things that Secretary Robert Gate's
recommended, was the closing of Gitmo. Mukasey, on the other hand, agrees
with President Bush that, although he would "like" to close it,
he said, "I'm prepared to say we need to get the best advice and the
best ideas we can, with the goal of closing it down." He's just not
sure what to do with the over 300 detainees....I would guess that allowing
all those who are detained without evidence being let go would knock that
number down to a reasonable amount would be a good solution to the
problem.
COULD MUKASEY ASSURE US THERE WOULD BE NO MORE
POLITICS IN THE DOJ?
Mukasey seemed clear on this, he wasn't going to allow decisions on hiring
and firing on whether they have an "R" or a "D" next
to their names. He said that if he found out that this was happening, he
would get into the middle of it fast. I would imagine that since he knows
the DOJ will be watched carefully for this in the future, he may be true
to his word.
MUKASEY WASN'T BEING VERY FORTHCOMING ON THE ISSUE
OF THE DETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENS
This is very disturbing to me. When Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked, in light
of Mukasey's involvement with the Padilla case, whether Mukasey thought
the law, and particularly the September 2001 authorization of military
force for Afghanistan, permitted seizing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil
indefinitely without charge. Mukasey cited the 2004 Hamdi case as
upholding the president's ability to detain U.S. citizens on the
battlefield, but said he "can't say now"
whether the "battlefield" applies to the United States. It
remains unclear whether Mukasey thinks U.S. citizens captured at home in
terrorism-related investigations can be indefinitely detained. This is NOT
good!
Let me know what your thoughts are on these hearings. Do you trust that
Mukasey is telling the truth, or do you think once he has the job, he will
continue on as a loyal Bushie?
President George W. "Contradiction" Bush
By James for Genius
of Insanity
During a press conference today, President said this in
regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "The
U.S. can not impose peace."
My response, "Except in Iraq according to President George W. Bomb, er,
I mean Bush." Of course one could possibly
extrapolate here that Bush has learned his lesson from the Iraq war that one
can not force peace but "W" never was a very good student.
GOI: In another part of the
conference, Bush was asked by NBC White House correspondent David Gregory if
he agreed with Israel's decision to bomb the Osirak nuclear facility near
Baghdad in 1981. Bush
responded: Ah, Dave, you know I don’t remember what
I was doing in 1981. I was living in Midland, Texas. I don’t remember my
reaction that far back.
GOI: Yeah that's because you were
drunk and high on cocaine all the time back then, President Jack Daniels.
You admitted yourself that you didn't stop drinking until 1986.
You probably couldn't even remember your own damn name before 1986 let alone
anything going on in the world of politics/global affairs. Oh yeah and since
you can't remember anything from back then, let me take this moment to
remind you too that
your daughters were born in 1981.
Know a blog that
deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report? Contact Robert.
Trying
to do the right thing, comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres now
finds herself in deep doo doo with Mutts and Moms. Ellen adopted Iggy, a
cute little dog. She cared for Iggy to the best of her ability, and when
it was clear the adoption was not going to work out she gave the dog to a
loving family. The dog lived there for two weeks -- bonding with the two
girls in the home, and they bonded with Iggy.
When Mutts and Moms called to check up on Iggy, Ellen didn't lie -- she
told them the truth. And that's when the trouble started. It seems Ellen
had signed an agreement saying that she would not give the dog away. Mutts
and Moms, claiming Ellen violated the contract, demanded the dog be
returned.
They physically went over to Iggy's new home and carted Iggy back to the
shelter.
Now
you tell me. What would be best for Iggy -- to live with a family that
loves him? Or, live in a dog shelter?
If you agree that Iggy should be returned to the family that loves him,
email or call Mutts and Moms today. You can reach them at:
The web site is currently down, probably from too many hits! The questions
to ask are: Why didn't Mutts and Moms simply interview the new family and
let Iggy stay? Is going by the policy more important that what is in the
best interest of the dog and the family?
Urge Mutts and Moms to SET IGGY FREE!
------------------------------------------------ UPDATE: A
spokesperson for Mutts and Moms said "rules
are rules" and that the adoption agency has no plans to turn over
Iggy. Degeneres had given the dog to her hairdresser, who has two
children. On Sunday Mutts and Moms came, police in tow, to retrieve the
dog.
Despite an on-air plea from Degeneres, Mutts and Moms owner Marina Batkis
"is not going to give them the dog."
... the Pasadena-based organization that has been the target of death
and arson threats and calls for a boycott since DeGeneres' emotional
retelling of the doggy dilemma on her talk show Tuesday, said that his
client has no plans to return the four-month-old Brussels Griffon
terrier mix to DeGeneres' hairdresser and her two young daughters. [...]
"[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have
the dog," Fink told the Associated Press. "She is adamant that
she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the
world…They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get
what it is they want."
Yeah, a decent home for a dog now living in a shelter. The NERVE of them.
Geezzzz Someone should take Ellen and Portia out back and slap them! How
dare they find a good home for a homeless little dog.
Halsey and Bonnie Frost appeared on Keith Olbermann earlier this week
to defend their children and their family from the attack dogs of the Republican
Party.
This story is devastating to the Republican Party and it continues to
spread. It shows the ugly, dark underbelly of the GOP: lies, smears,
stalking, and death threats directed at two little children whose only
"crime" was speaking out on behalf of other children who need
help.
The most important moment in this video clip? The moment when a young
father speaks out to defend his children from Republican
attack bloggers: "faceless characters who can't sign their own names
to what they're saying . . . which I think is just absolutely
pathetic."
The pathology of this incident is complex and it was caused in no small
part by anonymous bloggers on the Republican side. I have previously
discussed the problems and risks of anonymous blogging here.
I think it is entirely possible that some of the Republicans who attacked
the Frost family may have committed serious felonies. I hope this incident
will be thoroughly investigated.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about this incident is that Republicans
do not seem to have learned anything from it. When another family stepped
forward to share their experience with SCHIP, the Republicans had another
opportunity to follow the high road, to discuss the issues without
engaging in personal attacks on children. Once again, the Republican Party
fell short of what most Americans consider decent behavior.
Our challenge as Democrats,
and specifically as Democratic bloggers, is to hold the Republican Party
and its online supporters accountable for their actions at the polling
booth.
Guess
who is turning one year old?
Trying
to do the right thing, comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres now
finds herself in deep doo doo with Mutts and Moms. Ellen adopted Iggy, a
cute little dog. She cared for Iggy to the best of her ability, and when
it was clear the adoption was not going to work out she gave the dog to a
loving family. The dog lived there for two weeks -- bonding with the two
girls in the home, and they bonded with Iggy.
Now
you tell me. What would be best for Iggy -- to live with a family that
loves him? Or, live in a dog shelter?