We'll never claim to be fair and balanced, just honest and trustworthy
December 19, 2007

Latest video from Countdown

Ignorant Republican Attacks "Existentialism"
From Len Hart for The Existential Cowboy

I suppose the GOP has run out of strawmen --"phony wars", "pot" "evolutionists", and "secular humanists". Now they've taken aim at a mainstream philosophy with roots in the enlightenment, a philosophy defined by a charasteristic with which goppers have precious little experience: personal responsibility.

I expect nothing else from a party whose very existence depends upon blaming everyone and everything but itself for its many crimes and failures --political and personal. The GOP is not a political party, it's a cult and, at the leadership level, a criminal conspiracy that ought to be investigated by a Federal Grand jury. It dares to attack a mainstream political philosophy with roots in Cartesianism and Voltaire's famous statement: "I have no name but the name that I have made for myself". But --alas --I have almost grown accustomed to endemic stupidity and ignorance from a party that is also characterized by greed and arrogance.

Now Starting: The War on Existentialism

In a stirring speech yesterday, former Missouri Senator Jim Talent said that not only does global terrorism demand a stronger a more efficient military, but also that it is part of an "existential threat to America."

"These people are reading Jean-Paul Sartre to their children," the fiery Talent railed. "We cannot have that influence our society."

"American demands a philosophical undermining that is grounded, epistemologically-speaking, in a fervent belief in God and his infinite capacity to bless us at the same as damning half our citizens to hell. The Terrorists want to spread their message of mortal isolation, forlornness, and the accidental nature of existence upon us, but we must fight them!"

When asked if he had any experience with existentialism, Talent replied, "I read The Stranger once, and all I wanted to do was tell him he wasn't a stranger to Jesus."

Existentialist Noble Prize Winner Jose Saramago replied to Talent's ramblings saying, "Entre os fataés eventos desta presente guerra, entendo serà de V.m. sem duvida havido por digno de maior ponderaçaõ, o que aconteceo na Cidade de Genova, no dia dez do corrente; eu, que com horror vi o principio, e o fim delle, faltaria aos empenhos da nossa boa amizade se deixasse de participalo a V.m. com individuarlhe as cauzas de que se originou, e narrarlhe sinceramente os factos mais essenciaes de que se compoz."

To which Talent replied: "Yes, that is exactly the kind of filth I want to fight."

It will be a long struggle, defeating existentialism. We'll have to burn a lot of books. Killing philosophers should be easy, but what if Woody Allen has to go as well?

Either way, if the threat to America is, as Mr. Talent says, existential, I'm sure our brightest minds will find some way to fight it, just as we did that pesky War on Drugs that finally went away.
To start with, Talent used the term "existential" incorrectly. Most certainly, in context, he means "existentialist" threat. The quagmire of Bush's creation in Iraq is an "existential" threat whether Talent is an "Existentialist" or not. Goppers, like Bush, "don't do nuance". But Talent's mistake can be dismissed. It's just a product of an inadequate education or willful stupidity. With the GOP, you can take your pick. Remember, this is a party that has waged war on public education. Education lost.

I find it incredible that Talent has ever bothered to read a book at all --let alone either the "Bible" or "L'etranger" or, for Talent, "The Stranger". Why does a fundie bother to read a book when it is so much easier to blame others for one's own failures?

I am frankly fed up with stupid people telling me and the nation what to do. While defending Talent's right to be stupid and his First Amendment right to say stupid things, I likewise defend my own right to be intelligent and call him an idiot. So here goes: Talent is a typical GOP idiot, a typical GOP bigot, a typical GOP ignoramus, and, because he has chosen to be a gopper, he is responsible --existentially --for the choice that he has made. Talent and Talent alone is responsible for having chosen to be a part of an organization that appeals to crookedness, that thrives on corruption and lies. Absolutely unforgivable is the fact the the GOP is --at its black heart --elitist when there is no valid reason to be so.

Existentialists are free because, by definition, they accept responsibility for what they are. There is no freedom without choice, no choice without responsibility. Even concentration camp victims of Hitler found freedom in incarceration. Victor Frankl purposefully chose his own attitude in the face of death. Talent is not a free man. Talent is a tool!

Now --if you wish to become expert on Existentialism, you must start with Descartes' cogito: I think, therefore I am. In Southern parlance: if you ain't thinkin', you ain't livin'. Even a gopper has no choice but to admit his/her own existence, given that the gopper in question has a pulse. One's own existence cannot be doubted. Everything else follows from that. Then read Soren Kierkegaard, a "Christian" existentialist. What could Talent possibly have against a fellow Christian? Perhaps, the fact that Kierkegaard dared to be intelligent while Talent and his fellow minions dare to show themselves in public.

Then there is the monumental volume "Being and Nothingness" by Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist existentialist. If you have time for only one book about existentialism, read "Existentialism and Human Emotions" by Sartre. It can be summed up in a single clause: A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself". It must surely be the many corollaries to that which bother idiots like Talent. It means simply that they --Republicans --can no longer get away with blaming the entire world for their failures as people, their failures as a party, their failures in positions of governmental responsibility for which they are singularly unsuited.

Let's assume that Talent was born with at least an average intelligence. Then Talent alone is responsible for the sorry-assed, fucked up mess that he made of himself, the cesspool that his party made of Washington, the hell hole that it made of Iraq. An addendum: 20 things you have to believe to be a Republican today

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

4. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

18. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist; but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.--

20 things you have to believe to be a Republican today


The Ballad of the Existentialist

Rudy Giuliani, Lawrence Ray, & the Mafia
 From Oliver Willis

Another hit for "America's Mayor" as more details of his alleged relationship with mafia-connected Lawrence Ray via Bernard Kerik drips out.

That evidence, reviewed by The Washington Post, shows that Kerik brought Ray into contact with Giuliani on a handful of occasions documented in photos and that he invoked Giuliani's name in connection with a New Jersey construction company with alleged mob ties that is now at the heart of the criminal cases.
You can almost hear the Sopranos theme song in the background.

A Bush in the Hand
 From Stan Matuska for U-Blog Press

Bill Clinton: George H.W. Bush will help President Hillary

Bill Clinton said former president George H.W. Bush will help fix damage done to America's reputation by his son, George W. Bush.

ORANGEBURG, South Carolina (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton said Monday (Dec. 17th) that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

A spokesman for the George H. W. Bush said Tuesday afternoon the former president supports his son's foreign policy and has "never discussed an ‘around-the-world-mission’ with either former President Bill Clinton or Sen. Clinton." (Click here for the full statement)

Clinton and the elder Bush, rivals in the 1992 presidential election, have grown chummy in recent years, often traveling and appearing at public events together. In 2005, they started a charity to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

UPDATE: The Republican National Committee issued this statement in response to Clinton's comments:
"In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies abroad to continue to keep our nation safe," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "The American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation."

Yeah, whatever. If Hillary becomes the next president, then I have no doubt that the senior Bush would jump for the chance to go on a around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by his son. Bush senior has always seemed to have a cooler head than his son; and isn't afraid to call him out on his failings....though his spoken words first need to be filtered by wife Barbara.

Know a blog that deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report?  Contact Robert.

Sorry, but you need flash to view this video

Steve Martin
From By Ken Levine

Just finished Steve Martin’s new book, BORN STANDING UP. It is the perfect holiday stocking stuffer for anyone interested in comedy. Like most funny people he is very introspective, very neurotic, and with his talent comes a whole closet full of demons. But he’s very candid and revealing. He shares his failures – professional and romantic, his anxiety attacks, his dysfunctional family, where the back entrances are at Knotts Berry Farm.

Side note: It seems that every artist growing up in LA in the 60s had a distant somewhat abusive father. What was it with these guys? “Son, it’s beautiful and sunny all the time. You never have to shovel snow like many other kids your age, so I’m going to have to beat you.”

There’s also a book-on-tape of this book with Martin himself reading it. (On the one hand you say, “Of course he reads it himself, it’s first person” but knowing Martin, I would not have been shocked if he had gotten Stuttering John or Elaine Stritch to do it instead.) But the thing you miss with the audio presentation is the pictures. And they’re great. Most never before seen. And even better – he includes a handwritten critique of his act when he was 15. Wow. You really feel that he’s giving you the inside stuff.

Martin contends that he had no gifts, that his success was just a product of sheer will, hard work, and endless repetition. I think he sells himself short. His stand-up act was inspired, totally original, and yes, polished over many years but you need the comic chops to pull it off and he had ‘em.

The book takes you into his thought process. Martin was (and is) a student of comedy and everything he did was painstakingly thought-out and carefully crafted. He was no “wild and crazy guy” by accident. I learned a lot and I've been doing this for awhile now.

From his days in Disneyland, writing for the Smothers Brothers, losing two girlfriends to director John Frankenheimer – Martin tells it all. It’s a great and very informative read.

The thing I admire most about him is how he continually re-invents himself. From stand-up comedian, to actor, screenwriter, novelist, playwright, and now memoirs writer. There's really only one frontier he hasn't conquered -- probably because it's the toughest. And maybe someday, if he has the courage, he'll try his hand at blogging.

Steve, if you need any tips give me a call.

John Edward's Love Child?
From Polishifter for for Pissed on Politics

It's going to be reported tomorrow by the National Enquirer (NE) that John Edwards has a 'love child'. The mother is apparently in hiding but of course the NE got pictures.

Dirty Politics.

If it's true it's damaging.

If it's not true it's damaging.

John McCain's 2000 Presidential Bid was such by love child rumors which later turned out not to be true.

Question: If voters can over look Giuliani's affairs can they also over look a love child?

The story either way is going to get coverage by Drudge and will likey get picked up by the right wing blogs. We'll see if it goes anywhere.

I highly doubt it's true. If it were true it would be nearly impossible to have kept it quiet all this time.

National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal

John Edwards Love Child Report Coming From National Enquirer

Woman Sees Jesus and George Washington in Rock
Posted by James for Genius of Insanity

(Above: Jesus/George Washington rock)
A Tucson woman strolling the banks of the Santa Cruz river says she un-earthed a two faced rock.

Rae Oliver discovered the stone last week.

"So I pick it up and, lo and behold, it's Jesus! And I'm examining it and looking at it and I turn it around and on the other side is George Washington."

GOI: Hmm, it looks to me like a head of one of those stone statues on Easter Island. Maybe "God" is telling us to worship the Easter Island "Gods."
It does though look a bit like George Washington but not like any picture of Jesus that I've seen, in the least. Why George Washington I wonder? What about a picture of Moses, Peter or what about Mary? Washington didn't attend church that much and did not take communion. In all his writings he never mentioned, "Jesus Christ." He even mentioned that he would consider those of all beliefs when hiring workers to work on Mount Vernon, including non-religious Atheists!! THE HORROR!!! It seems that based on the evidence, Washington was more of a Deist then a Christian. So why would "God" send us this rock looking like George Washington when George Washington was more likely a Deist and most Deists reject miracles and believe that God doesn't interfere with human life? Sending us such a rock definitely interferes with human life.

The thing that I find humorous about all these supposed cases of seeing Jesus in rocks, doors and cheese sandwiches is that we have no historical evidence AT ALL as to what Jesus looks like. And all those that have been invented all look different. For all we know Jesus was black.

Her neighbor, Ron Mozitis, says it took him a few hard looks before seeing Christ's image. Rock in hand he says "I see President Bush with his mouth open. No wait... when you look at it like this I definitely see the profile of Jesus."

The meaning of this can be left up to interpretation. Oliver says she sees the G.W. initials of George Washington proclaiming God's Wisdom. And the likeness of Jesus on the other side? "It's a sign of the times to come and we have to change and be kinder and more God like."

GOI: And how does she plan to use the rock to "change" our greedy, materialistic, selfish society and become more "God like?" Why, by selling her divine rock on Ebay of course!!

Oliver says she doesn't have any big plans for the two faced rock. She says for now she's reserved a special place on her mantle for it. Or, "eBay is a possibility."

She says it's a gift from God coming just in time for Christmas.

GOI: So she plans on thanking "God" for this gift by selling it. Nice. Because nothing says "Thanks for the supernatural, rare, divine, thoughtful gift" like turning around and selling it for as much money as you can get. Only in America.

Judge Orders Hearings as Suspicions Mount of CIA 'Torturegate' Cover-Up
 From Skeeter Sanders for The 'Skeeter Bites Report

Eerie Echoes of Watergate Sweep Washington After D.C. Federal Court Defies White House Bid to Block a Judicial Inquiry; ACLU Files Motion in N.Y. Federal Court to Hold CIA in Contempt for Violating '04 Court Ruling

The President takes a walk in the snow on the South Lawn with his dog, Spot, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2002.
 
The loneliest man in Washington? In this 2002 photo, President Bush walks his dog, Spot, on the south lawn of the White House. The image is apt: Bush may now be following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon by stonewalling congressional and judicial investigations of an alleged cover-up of torture tactics by the CIA against suspected al-Qaida operatives. Nixon did the same thing in the Watergate investigation three and a half decades earlier -- and destroyed his presidency as a result. (White House file photo by Eric Draper)

(Updated 5:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, December 19, 2007)

By Skeeter Sanders

A U.S. District Court Judge in Washington ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to answer questions about the destruction of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation videos of two al-Qaida suspects, amid growing suspicions that the White House is engaging in a Watergate-style cover-up of CIA interrogation tactics banned as torture under U.S. and international law.

Rejecting the government's efforts to keep the courts out of the investigation, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy ordered Justice Department lawyers to appear at a hearing scheduled for Friday morning to discuss whether destroying the tapes, which showed two al-Qaida suspects being questioned, violated his 2005 court order.

In documents filed late last Friday, government lawyers told Kennedy that for the judge to demand information about the CIA interrogation videotapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

On Tuesday, Kennedy disagreed.

CIA Destroyed Tapes Despite 2005 Court Order to 'Preserve Evidence'

Acting in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of detentions at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Judge Kennedy ordered the Bush administration in June 2005 -- five months before the tapes were ordered destroyed by Jose Rodriguez, Jr., then the chief of the CIA's clandestine operations -- to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at. . . Guantanamo Bay."

Attorneys representing a group of Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo had asked Kennedy to hold a hearing on whether the tapes' destruction violated that order. The now-destroyed recordings involved suspected al-Qaida terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Government lawyers told Judge Kennedy the tapes were not covered by his court order because because Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were being kept in secret prisons at the time, not at the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba. By the time President Bush acknowledged the existence of those prisons and Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were transferred to Guantanamo, the tapes were destroyed.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bucholtz was said in court documents to be concerned that Kennedy might order CIA officials to testify about the tapes. Bucholtz said that "could potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter." Bucholtz also argued that Kennedy does not have jurisdiction over the matter in any case.

Kennedy's decision could, as a result of Friday's hearing, lead to charges of obstruction of justice levied against the government.

ACLU Seeks Contempt Citation Against CIA Over Destroyed Tapes

Attorneys in other cases, meanwhile, began pressing other judges to demand information about the tapes.

The ACLU filed a motion in U.S. District Court in New York last Wednesday seeking a contempt-of-court citation against the CIA for violating a judge's 2004 order to produce records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after the 9/11 attacks and held in U.S. custody abroad -- not only at Guantanamo, but also at the CIA's secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

The ACLU had filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in June 2004. U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments the following September to "produce or identify" all relevant documents by October 15.

The CIA argued in its response that some of the documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA's inspector general and requested a stay of the judge's order. Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA's request for a stay, but did not enforce his decision when the CIA immediately filed a motion for the judge to reconsider his ruling.

CIA lawyers have since kept the ACLU lawsuit at bay by filing repeated motions for continuance. With the agency's admission that it had destroyed the interrogation videos, the ACLU filed its contempt motion. If Judge Hellerstein holds the CIA in contempt, the resulting furor could snowball to a full-scale constitutional confrontation between the executive and judicial branches.

White House Balks at Sharing Info With Congress on Tapes Probe

Suspicions that the White House is engaging in a Watergate-style cover-up of CIA interrogation tactics banned as torture under U.S. and international law had intensified over the weekend as the White House balked Friday at providing Congress with details about the joint investigation by the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general into the destruction of hundreds of hours of videotapes of CIA agents interrogating suspected al-Qaida operatives.

Congressional leaders of both parties promptly fired back that the White House has no right to interfere with Congress' constitutional oversight authority to investigate the activities of the executive branch and vowed to press on with their probes -- issuing subpoenas if necessary.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused lawmakers' requests to furnish them with details of the administration's preliminary investigation into the videos' destruction, claiming that to do so "could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressure."

In a letter released Friday to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department, Mukasey also said there is "no need right now" to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation, as congressional Democrats are demanding.

"I am aware of no facts at present to suggest that [Justice Department] attorneys cannot conduct this inquiry in an impartial manner," Mukasey wrote to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), the chairman and highest-ranking minority-party member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "If I become aware of information that leads me to a different conclusion, I will act on it."

Mukasey said there is a longstanding policy by the Justice Department of not providing information to Congress about pending cases. "This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence," he wrote.

"Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the committee's interests in this matter," the attorney general concluded in his letter, which was also sent to the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee.

AG Interfering With Congress' Oversight Authority, Lawmakers Say

Lawmakers of both parties reacted with anger, accusing Mukasey of acting like his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, who refused to cooperate with congressional inquiries of administration practices in the past.

Gonzales -- who wrote a controversial 2002 memo to CIA interrogators that gave them the green light to use waterboarding -- resigned in disgrace in September amid accusations that he had eight U.S. attorneys fired for partisan political reasons, possibly in violation of the Hatch Act.

The lawmakers accused Mukasey of interfering with Congress' constitutional oversight authority over the Justice Department and the CIA by refusing to provide the Judiciary Committee with information and by advising the CIA against cooperating with a House Intelligence Committee inquiry into the tapes' destruction.

"Our staff was notified that the Department of Justice has advised CIA not cooperate with our investigation," House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said Friday in a joint statement with Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the committee's ranking Republican.

"We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation," Reyes and Hoekstra said. "Parallel investigations [by the administration, Congress and the judiciary] occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work. . . It's clear that there's more to this story than we have been told, and it is unfortunate that we are being prevented" from learning the facts.

"The executive branch can't be trusted to oversee itself," the lawmakers concluded.

Hoekstra Blasts CIA, Threatens Subpoenas

For his part, Hoekstra issued a blistering attack on the CIA and on the complex network of U.S. intelligence agencies in general, which he described as arrogant, incompetent and unaccountable.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Hoekstra warned that he will push the House Intelligence Committee to subpoena the Justice Department and the CIA if they refuse to cooperate. "We want to hold the [intelligence] community accountable for what's happened to these tapes," he said. "We will issue subpoenas."

Asked if witnesses will be offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony, Hoekstra replied that "Once these witness appear in front of the committee, then I think we'll have to make the decision as to whether we're going to provide them with immunity or not. But our investigation should move forward."

Hoekstra said CIA Director Hayden should be held accountable for what he called misleading statements by the agency during his term, which began in 2006 after the tapes had been destroyed.

Showdown Looming Between All Three Government Branches Not Seen Since Watergate

The latest developments in what administration critics are branding as "Torturegate" raise the prospect of a constitutional confrontation between all three branches of government of a magnitude not seen since the early 1970s, when President Richard Nixon's administration stonewalled congressional and judicial investigations of executive-branch wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal.

Nixon's cover-up of the 1972 break-in of the Democrats' national headquarters at Washington's Watergate complex by burglars employed by Nixon's re-election campaign eventually unraveled and destroyed his presidency, which ended in 1974 with Nixon's resignation under threat of certain impeachment and removal from office by Congress.

The drama also come less than a week after The 'Skeeter Bites Report revealed exclusively that a U.S. attorney in Virginia, in a letter to a federal appeals court, disclosed that his office viewed two CIA interrogation tapes two months ago, contrary to CIA Director Michael Hayden's public statements that the tapes were destroyed in 2005.

9/11 Suspects May Be on Still-Surviving CIA Videos in Moussaoui Case

Zubaydah was the first high-value al-Qaida operative to be captured by the CIA in 2002. Al-Nashiri is the alleged coordinator of the suicide attack in 2000 on the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 sailors.

Both Zubaydah and Al-Nashiri may also be on the two CIA tapes that Charles Rosenberg, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, disclosed in a letter obtained by The 'Skeeter Bites Report that his office viewed on September 19 and October 18 of this year -- contrary to public statements by CIA Director Michael Hayden that the tapes were destroyed in 2005.

Rosenberg's letter referred to the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the lone suspect convicted in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington that killed over 3,000 people and destroyed the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center.

That remains unclear, however, because Rosenberg's heavily-edited October 27 letter to U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over the Moussaoui trial in Alexandria, Virginia, and to Judge Karen Williams, chief judge of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the state capital, Richmond, contained no references to the identities of the al-Qaida suspects whom CIA agents were interrogating.

But the apparent continued existence of the two tapes -- combined with the administration's stonewalling with congressional and judicial probes into the CIA's interrogation tactics -- has given critics new ammunition to accuse the White House of engaging in a cover-up of torture by the CIA.

Tapes Showed Zubaydah Was Waterboarded, Ex-CIA Agent Says

Meanwhile, a former CIA agent who was part of the interrogation team told ABC News in an interview broadcast last Tuesday that the destroyed videos included recordings of Zubaydah being subjected to waterboarding -- and that the tactic was approved at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Waterboarding is a technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. The practice is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

According to John Kiriakou, leader of the CIA team that captured Zubaydah, the waterboarding got Zubaydah to talk "in less than 35 seconds." His information "probably disrupted dozens of planned al-Qaida attacks," Kiriakou told the network.

The former agent refused to say how he learned who approved the interrogation technique, but he did say that such approval came from top officials.

"This isn't something done willy-nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner," Kiriakou told ABC News. "This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department."

For decades before President Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. regarded waterboarding as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions that govern the treatment of prisoners of war, and America's own Uniform Code of Military Justice -- and had even prosecuted individuals for employing the technique.

Bush's Veto Threat Kills Bill to Ban CIA Torture

Bush further intensified suspicions of a "Torturegate" cover-up on Friday by threatening to veto a bill passed on the same day by the House that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other interrogation tactics branded torturous by critics.

The president's veto threat led Senate Republicans to throw up a procedural roadblock against the bill in the upper chamber, effectively killing the measure.

The House bill, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

The Army rules, imposed by Congress on all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, as well as withholding food and medical care -- tactics that were employed by U.S. military personnel against detainees at Iraq's now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad after the fall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The White House argued that restricting CIA interrogation techniques to those authorized by the Army Field Manual "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al-Qaida terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack."

"Hogwash," say administration critics.

Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, told The Washington Post that the CIA's admission that it had destroyed videotapes of its interrogations of al-Qaida suspects is one reason that the legislation is needed.

"It's unlikely the tapes would have been destroyed unless the CIA believed that they showed something that they needed to hide: interrogators engaging in practices that most of the world would consider torture," Daskal said.

Retired Army General Paul Kern, who led the Abu Ghraib abuse investigation, accused the White House of having "two sets of standards for interrogation -- one for the CIA and another for the military."

This double standard, Kern told the Post, creates problems for the credibility and accountability of the U.S.

General Kern is one of 27 retired military officers who signed a letter that urged the House and Senate intelligence committees to hold the CIA to the same standards that Congress set for the military. "We ought to have one set of standards, period," Kern said.

McCain: New Interrogation Policy Needed

On the presidential campaign trail, Republican White House hopeful John McCain said he wants "a crash program" in civilian and military schools that emphasizes language and creates a "new specialty in strategic interrogation" so the nation never feels the need for torture.

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war who suffered mistreatment, talked about the new proposal at a campaign stop Saturday in Columbia, South Carolina. He said he wanted to create an Army Advisory Corps of 20,000 soldiers to act as military advisers and revive the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services to fight terrorists.

Meanwhile, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee slammed both the destruction of the CIA videos and the aggressive interrogation techniques suspected to be used in those interrogations. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) expressed worries of a Watergate-style cover-up.

"Burning tapes, destroying evidence, I don't know how deep this goes," he said. "Could there be obstruction of justice? Yes. How far does this go up in the White House -- who knew it? I don't know."

Not the kind of history this bitch wants to make ...
From Shark Fu for Angry Black Bitch

A nod of my Afro to Rikyrah over at Mirror on America for the tip on this ignorant bullshit.

I’m not surprised that campaign minions have begun to smear Senator Obama with allegations that he was raised a religious radical nor am I surprised that “his name sure is different” bullshit has reared its ignorant head.

But I am surprised that anyone thinks they’ll get away with this shit or that those lame excuses with fly.

No…uh, uh…not.

Clinton 2008 has officially pissed me the hell off!
A bitch wasn’t even going to dip into the early primaries until they dove to such an insulting low that even my reluctant ass is checking airfares to South Carolina (anyone got a bed for a bitch?).

I call bullshit on any assertion that Clinton 2008…a campaign so tightly controlled that staffers won’t fart without getting a memo containing secret code granting permission to do so from the candidate…wasn’t connected with the over the top obvious as hell slapping down of the real race card that Bob Kerrey (who endorsed Clinton) pulled the other day.

"I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust [Obama] because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa," the Nebraska Democrat said "I feel quite opposite. I think it's a tremendous strength whether he's in the United States Senate or whether he's in the White House."
Oh and...

"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."

Yeah, motherfucker…right.

That shit ain’t subtle and you ain’t slick.

If these comments are innocent, then that 2006 Republican macaca "slip" was an accident.

Catch thy knee, I’m not endorsing any candidate...but I am an advocate for voter education and I intend to educate my brothers and sisters in South Carolina about what’s going on in Iowa and about the difference between a candidate pandering to the black vote and respecting it.

A bitch wants to ask my brothers and sisters how they’d feel if their son/brother/cousin/black male friend, who was running for high office, had campaign operatives smear him as a drug dealing third generation religious radical rather than discuss policy differences.

Don't even get me started on the anti-Muslim slant...ugh!
Religious tolerance, my black ass.
I want to know how the same black voters Clinton 2008 is courting feel about the name game being pulled on Barack Obama while issues like generational poverty, dealing with HIV/AIDS in black communities, unequal access to education, job discrimination (though it looks like at least some Clinton supporters know a heck of a lot about the anatomy of that shit) and a lack of affordable housing go unaddressed.

This is privilege as usual …the move they pull when shit gets competitive so they can take you out at the knees and put an uppity “he should be happy as a Senator” candidate back into the submissive “what can I do to help you get elected, Missus?” position.

The way I see it, Clinton 2008 is willing to risk offending some primary voters in later states because assholes with spreadsheets were able to show that the Iowa bump will be worth it...
...and I guess that answers my questions about politics as usual versus a real commitment to change.
The Woman has shown herself to be a lot like The Man and that's not the kind of history this bitch is interested in making.
Blink.

Resist More Media Consolidation
From Libhom for Godless Liberal Homo

 From a Free Press Email Alert:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and his two fellow GOP commissioners approved new rules that will unleash a flood of media consolidation across America. The rules will further consolidate local media markets -- taking away independent voices in cities already woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.

In 2003, the FCC tried to do the same thing, but millions of people demanded that Congress reject the FCC's rules. And they did. It's time to do it again.
Amy Goodman gave further detail on the rule changes on Democracy Now!
Martin would increase media consolidation by relaxing the rules for companies seeking to own both a newspaper and television or radio station in the same city.
Free Press has an open letter to Congress which they are urging people to sign.

Take Action!

Click here to comment on this Blog World Report