A Third Bush Term?

How Clinton or Obama could lose to these people is beyond me. But, of course the country I live in is not the country that others live in, obviously.

The F*** It List

From Daily Kos:

Dick Cheney and George Bush star as two disgraced and declining Republican conservatives who decide to break out of the White House and live their last days to the fullest in director Karl Rove’s tragicomic road movie. Dick Cheney is a corporate billionaire who is currently sharing the White House with a failed, bicycle riding, frat brat George Bush. Though initially, the pair seems to have nothing in common as they approach the end of eight years of political humiliation, they both realize that they have a long list of powers that they would still like to abuse before being driven out of office. Realizing that the power of the White House may be their last chance to accomplish their most selfish desires, the two come up with a "Fuck It" list of things that they would like to do to "fuck over" their friends, family, critics, and the White House's incoming occupant. The "Fuck It" list includes playing chicken with the entire US economy, throwing thousands more soldiers to needless deaths, and ultimately pushing "that big red button on the end of my desk that I'm never supposed to push".

The Stimulus Plan from Congress is Pathetic

I think all agree that an economic stimulus plan was needed for our failing economy. Because of all the political banter here and everywhere, the real issues in our lives are obscured, by who we think would sit in the oval office chair the best. So, last night I watched the Republican debate for as long as I could take it (about 13 minutes) and saw that basically all of the Republican candidates liked the stimulus package. They thought we should also rip the hearts out of poor people and give it to multinational corporations too, but felt overall it was not so bad. It got me to thinking if they liked it - it must be pretty pathetic. Along comes Paul Krugman to give the real story.

Here it is. "Aside from business tax breaks - which are an unhappy story for another column - the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially - which misses the whole point."

So, the democrats caved once again to the staunch right wing agenda of this administration? What for? Is it because they think we are as stupid as Republicans? That anything that gets passed in Congress is at least doing something?

Just a few days ago the plans were focused "on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

Krugman also says: "there was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn."

The problem, Krugman says is this administration refuses to sign on to anything that does not qualify as a "tax cut." Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration's commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it's most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.

So, besides "some concessions" by the administration the Republicans got what they wanted. We get $300 that will do absolutely nothing for us as an economy and to get our economy moving in any direction.

It looks like it is going to be a long winter.

Bush Vetoes SCHIP Again

Bush vetoed the bill in private. Is there anything more repulsive than a coward?

In a statement notifying Congress of his decision, Bush said the bill was unacceptable because - like the first one - it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes.

It makes you wonder did W start drinking again?

The House voted 211-180 late Wednesday to put off until Jan. 23 a vote on overriding the president's veto. "We are not going to let this veto stand," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Republicans said Democrats were scheduling the veto override vote to coincide with the week Bush comes to Congress for the State of the Union address.

The National Labor Relations Board is Abominable

After coming home from Paris and dealing with striking railway workers for ten days it was interesting to come home to news of the abominable National Labor Relations Board. It is a bit of old news, but ironic that the workers in France, if unhappy - strike, upset the entire country and are joined in unison by Air France workers, all fonctionaire workers, teachers, students (yes, students), the museums, etc. It was both a little frustrating and completely invigorating. I heard about this assault by the Bush administration on labor by the NLRB, but after seeing real labor power in France, it strikes me as ever more important for the progressive movement to get behind labor and push for labor reform as soon as possible.

Recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board has unions and pro labor folks up in arms and the thought of a democratic presidency (one that is truly pro labor, not Bill Clinton) is also invigorating.

The National Labor Relations Board was established to encourage "the practice and procedure of collective bargaining" and to protect the "exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid and protection."

For years unions have been saying that the NLRB system is broken and has become a tool of corporate interests and not the worker interests it was supposed to serve. That is why the labor movement and its progressive allies are pushing to amend the law with the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). "But the recent NLRB decisions say that the corporate Bush backers are not satisfied. They want the law completely eviscerated before Bush leaves office to make it even more difficult for a new President and Congress to address the problems of the denial of worker rights in America."

The Change to Win Federation says that in the month of September alone, on the eve of the close of the fiscal year, the Bush NLRB issued 61, mostly anti-worker, decisions -- fully 20 percent of its total output of decisions for the year. Greg Tarpinian, the executive director of the Change to Win Federation wrote recently and most eloquently:

The onslaught of decisions that are a direct violation of the intent of the National Labor Relations Act that established the NLRB is particularly interesting given that more than half of the decisions were on cases that are over four years old. For an agency notorious in its use of delay as a way to deprive workers of their rights, the sudden spate of decisions suggests that the Bush Administration is in full court press mode and will use its last months in office to gut as much as it can in the area of worker, consumer, environmental, and other protections.

This President has not only run roughshod over the Constitution, he has also destroyed the administrative rules by which our progressive laws have been enforced. And he plans on finishing the job before he leaves office. Labor, consumer, environmental, and other advocates for the American Dream need to link arms together to stop him.

Here are some examples of the assault on labor cases. I am taking this from the Change to Win Federation website.

Harder to join a union, easier to get rid of a union

Dana Corp., 351 NLRB No. 28 (Sept. 29, 2007) – In its fervor to undermine majority sign-up - the right of a majority of workers to sign a card to express their desire to gain a voice on the job and join a union - the Board reversed 40 years of precedent and invented a new rule: even when more than 50% of the workers sign cards indicating they want a union and the employer respects that choice, a 30% minority of employees may, within 45 days of voluntary recognition, petition to decertify the union, prevent the parties from bargaining, and force employees to suffer through the NLRB’s lengthy and divisive election process. Adding insult to injury, the NLRB ruled that employers would henceforth be required to post notices making sure employees are aware of their rights to overturn the union’s representation, but the notice does not include any mention of employees’ right to form a union free from interference.

Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 351 NLRB No. 50 (Sept. 29, 2007) – The Board took the opposite view about the reliability of signing a card when it comes to getting rid of a union! In this case, the NLRB ruled that signatures on a petition were sufficient to get rid of an existing union and the Board rejected its own election process, arguing that employees who want to get rid of their union should not have to endure the delay involved in a decertification election. In Dana, the NLRB said that signature cards were not true indicators of employee support.

Harder for illegally fired workers to get back pay

St. George Warehouse, 351 NLRB No. 42 (Sept. 30, 2007) – The NLRB reversed 45 years of precedent and shifted burdens of proof onto illegally fired workers, making it harder for those workers to recover back pay.

The Grosvenor Resort, 350 NLRB No. 86 (Sept. 30, 2007) - The Board announced a new rule that workers who were found to have been illegally fired but who wait more than two weeks before giving up on getting their job back and looking for a new job work will be denied back pay for that period so as not to “reward idleness.”

Easier for Employers to Fire and Intimidate Union Supporters

BP Amoco Chemical-Chocolate Bayou, 351 NLRB No. 39 (Sept. 29, 2007) - The Board ruled that it was perfectly permissible for an employer to target union supporters for layoffs, and then to force them to sign release forms, as a condition to receiving severance pay, that prevented them or anyone else from challenging the legality of their termination.

This is a shocking assault on the power of the American worker. Know that every assault on any union worker is assault on all American workers, chipping away at what the labor movement achieved in America over the past 100 years. Take action and condemn the Bush administration's assault on workers.

Bush and Musharraf are Not Strange Bed Fellows

Much of this post taken from Think Progress and Eteraz

I have been reluctant to report on a situation I do not know much about. I do know Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, replacing an elected prime minister, despite that is very friendly with the Bush administration. On November 3rd Musharraf suspended the Pakistan Constitution and imposed emergency rule citing a need to "curb terrorism and reign in activist judges." Musharraf had been on a collision course with the Supreme Court who were set to rule on a number of cases that would have challenged Musharraf as President and Commander of the military simultaneously.

The Provisional Constitutional Order that followed the emergency declaration put Pakistan’s 1973 constitution into abeyance and suspended all fundamental rights, including: Article 9 (security of person), 10 (safeguard as to arrest and detention), 15 (freedom of movement, etc.), 16 (freedom of assembly), 17 (freedom of association), 19 (freedom of speech, etc.) and 25 (equality of citizens) shall remain suspended.

According to Think Progress: The suspension of fundamental rights is already producing convictions, as four men accused of treason have been jailed for making anti-government speeches. Pakistan’s private TV stations were all blacked-out and sale of satellite dishes was halted. Hundreds of lawyers and activists around the country were detained or put under house arrest, and the most recent estimate is that around 2,500 people are in jail.

What is most alarming about this is that Bush was nearly silent about the constitutional suspension while publicly declaring Musharraf to reinstate the constitution (kind of like the we don't torture statements while fostering waterboarding). Bush supposedly phoned Musharraf: President Bush telephoned General Musharraf for the first time since the crisis began and bluntly told him that he had to return Pakistan to civilian rule, hold elections and step down as chief of the military, as he had promised. Mr. Bush called him from the Oval Office at 11:30 a.m. Washington time, and spoke for about 20 minutes, according to the White House.

But...(is there always a but with these fuckers) reputable Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir reported on Geo TV — Pakistan’s largest private cable news station — that the U.S. gave the green-light for Musharraf to go ahead and call the emergency. According to Mir, the U.S. supported Musharraf because it regarded the ousted “Chief Justice as a nuisance and ‘a Taliban sympathizer.’” That may explain why President Bush’s demands are so light:

Bush administration officials are unanimous in saying that American financial support for Pakistan will continue regardless of whether General Musharraf reverses course.

Is Bush all that different than Musharraf, really? Warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, Guantanamo Bay, sanctioning torture, lying us into war, etc. He and Musharraf have a lot in common. Thanks to Etaraz for most of this post. The post on Think Progress was great as well as the coverage since November 3rd. Check it out.

Lieberman is (of course) for the Nomination of Mukasey

See at Talking Points Memo the chart on who plans to vote for Mukasey as A.G. and who is still undecided. In my mind doing the opposite of Senator Lieberman is a good measure of what one should do. But, here is the reason this neocon wannabe should not be confirmed. Waterboarding is Torture. Torture is unacceptable. Period. There are certain lines we should not cross and this is one of them.

Bush is saying now that if Mukasey is not confirmed, then there will be no Attorney General. Sounds good to me.

Cindy Sheehan

“President Bush says we're safer fighting them there than over here. Why are we safer because 120,000 civilians [in Iraq] are dead? What makes their babies less precious than ours?” - Cindy Sheehan-

W's Job Approval Rating Drops to 25%

Bush' new record low approval rating is 25 percent. Twenty-five percent approve of the way he is doing his job while 67% disapprove (2/3 of the electorate).

To see more results go here. Seven in ten Americans say the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. This matches the lowest approval rating for Bush recorded by the American Research Group.

At this point Bush is clearly on the path to the worst President ever. He is combining Herbert Hoover's disastrous economy with Nixon's cheating and foreign policy fuck-ups. Wow. I think this is the worst approval rating of anyone since Nixon. And what happened to Nixon?

World War III on the Horizon?

Ditto for me Bush. You are isolating us from the rest of the world too. I remember an Air America host, Mike Malloy whom I loved (who was fired for being to liberal presumably) used to call Bush Chuckle Nuts. And I think the name fits.

Another Phony Soldier: This Time it is a General

General Sanchez (of Abu Ghraib infamy) on Friday assailed the Bush administration and called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.” In a speech, his first since retirement, he blamed the Bush administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.

“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said at a gathering here of military reporters and editors, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

Sanchez, it was reported is the most senior of administration generals to have criticized the administration and many say he has opened himself up to criticism because of his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, though he was cleared.

He went on to say: “there was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

No response from the administration yet, but see here Bush thanking Sanchez for his leadership. My question is will they (by they I mean the crazy right win thugs) go after General Sanchez as a phony soldier? Is he a terrorist sympathizer? How will this attack pan out? I can only wonder, but it will most likely surprise us all.

A Layman's Guide to Bush v. Gore (2000)

I thought this might be appropriate to post seeing that the loser, (ahem winner) of the 2000 election won the Nobel Peace Prize this week, while the winner (ahem loser) wields the American democracy further from its path than it ever has gone. Below describes the coup that took place in the year 2000 and we know the consequences of these actions. We can never let it happen again.

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?

A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?

A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?

A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?

A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?

A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?


A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?

A: They don't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?

A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?

A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.

A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?

A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote."

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.

A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.

A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?

A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.

A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of Jewish old age homes with mainly Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?

A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.

Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?


A: Nope.

Q: Why not?

A: No time.

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?

A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?

A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.

Q: So why is December 12 important?

A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?

A: Nothing.

Q: But I thought ---

A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.

A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?

A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.

A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?

A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?

A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?

A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?

A: Yes.

Q: But, but --

A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.

Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?

A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.

Q: So who is punished for this behavior?

A: Gore, of course.

Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?

A: Yes

Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?

A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?

A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count all ballots under a single uniform standard?

A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?

A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.

Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?

A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.


A: Read the opinions for yourself: (these will open in Acrobat reader)December 9 stay stopping the recounthttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdfandDecember 12 final opinionhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf

Q: So what are the consequences of this?

A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.

A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.

Q: Isn't anyone on the US Supreme Court a rational follower of the rule of law?

A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below:Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford): "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." [Respectfully dissenting.]

Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush): "Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now. [Respectfully dissenting.]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton): Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States." [Dissenting, The word "respectfully" was omitted on purpose.]

Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton): "There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . " We "risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation." [Respectfully dissenting.](end of article by Mark Levine, Esq.)

Bush Vetoes SCHIP Bill for Expanded Health Insurance for Children

Bush sought little fanfare when he vetoed the SCHIP bill. It is only the fourth veto of his Presidency (I have seen all the news reports about this, but give me a break he had a do-nothing, do whatever he wants Congress for six years). Harry Reid said of the veto: "Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America." Democrats may try to override the veto. They have the votes in the Senate, but not the house.

Check out the video above. Does Bush like kids as much as they like him?

Olbermann Special Comment

Keith goes after Bush once again (on Thursday). It starts declaring a special comment on Bush' and the Republican criticism of the moveon.org ad. But, turns and attacks Bush for "pimping" General Petraeus and stop moving our country towards a dictatorship. Watch it:

War Without End

The President went on television last night (there is truly nothing worthwhile to say about this speech) and told us we need to accept the reality that we will be in Iraq forever or at least as General Petraeus has put it - a nine to ten year committment. Bush said last night that "these Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship." We are supposed to accept this as a rationale for more war. Even Obama is saying despite the Iraq war's unpopularity, Congress lacks the votes to force a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number deployed. Poppycock! If they do not fight this one we need a new party to represent the people. Period.

But, as many have heard Edwards bought time on MSNBC to give a response to Bush and he lays out what Congress can do succinctly. And it is not complex, but it takes political courage, something the Democrats lack.

In the address Edwards said that the only way to force the Iraqis to take responsibility and negotiate a political solution is to begin withdrawing troops - immediately. Edwards criticized President Bush for refusing to change "the only strategy he has ever had - more time, more troops and more war."

Edwards concluded his remarks by reminding the American people that Congress must answer to them. "Tell Congress you know the truth - they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it," said Edwards. "When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal. No timeline, no funding. No excuses."

Rove and Bush Say Goodbye

Rove's last day. Is anyone sad to see this moron leave?

I found this on the Daily Kos and find it kind of funny. Appropriate for the coming holiday weekend.

Rove and Bush Say Goodbye

So this is it.

Guess so.

I just wanted to say, y'know...

I know. It's okay, you don't have to say it.

This is hard.

Yeah.

Write me?

Sure. Every day, boss.

Cool.

I... I should prob'ly get goin'.

Yeah. Long drive.

Long drive. Texas.

Yeah. Texas. You, uh... You got everything?

Yeah.

Need gas money?

I'm good.

Okay then. Pinky shake?

Okay...pinky shake.

Attaboy. Say, Karl...

Yes, Mr. President?

You think we'll ever get the chance to fuck over this many people again?

I doubt it. But it was fun while it lasted.

Goddam right.

Savor these last sixteen months, sir. Tempus fugit.

Yeah. Tempered widget indeed.

The Propaganda Regarding Iran Continues

Does this rhetoric from Bush sound familiar? Remember comments about Iraq that the "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud?" Bush is now warning of a nuclear (or as Bush puts it nucular) holocaust in the middle east. Bush branded the Iran republic the "world's leading sponsor of terrorism citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and of course Shiite fighters killing U.S. Troops in Iraq.

Also, a new study warns the U.S. is preparing a "massive military attack" against Iran.

Gonzalez Resigns: Why Don't They All Go?

Gonzalez is resigning. Hail to the Gods or the Secularists, whichever you choose. The NY Times says he will announce his resignation this morning.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not announced immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Check out Think Progress' analysis of how many times Gonzalez has said he will stay "to protect the kids" and other reasons. Word is Chertoff will replace him. Another incompetent who couldn't even visit New Orleans during the crisis of Katrina. He was at a conference in Atlanta and thought that more important.

A Spy Chief is the New FISA Court

I have been devastated over the last couple of days (thus the reason for our absence) to realize our constitution has been shit on, not only by Bush and his neo-con crackerjack incompetents, but by Democrats too scared or too elitist to challenge Bush in any way.

For the first time in nearly four decades, a senior intelligence official — not a secretive federal court — will have a decisive voice in whether Americans' communications can be monitored when they talk to foreigners overseas.

The new bill gives National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joint authority to approve the monitoring of such calls and e-mails, rather than the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Before the passage of the law, the President was in violation of the constitution, today it is the law. This action is no less a violation of separation of powers as was the Iraq War authorization.

This means an intelligence official is now empowered to sort through the legalistic, secretive world of FISA, rather than a judge or the nation's highest law enforcement officer. McConnell was added to the legal decision-making after lawmakers argued that the attorney general shouldn't hold the power alone. The spy chief's experience is largely in military intelligence, not legal matters. Oh, should we be thrilled that it is not Gonzalez alone? Are we supposed to be happy it is two people in the Executive branch (virtually and figuratively) instead of a court of law set-up to do such monitoring.

Civil liberties groups and some Democrats call the bill a vast expansion of government power. In the past several days, officials who work for McConnell, the Justice Department and the Republican congressional leadership have argued vehemently that that isn't so. Where the hell are they? Where is the outrage?

Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, which advocates for civil liberties, said the new law will potentially allow the government to intercept millions of Americans' calls and e-mails without warrants — as long as the NSA and other authorities have a foreign suspect in their sights. "This power that they have obtained is a dramatic expansion," she said.

The power may last longer than some people expect, Graves noted, thanks to a little-noticed provision of the bill. While the law expires in February unless Congress acts to extend it, any surveillance orders that are in place when it sunsets can last up to a full year, she said.
Without a repeal, lawmakers "weren't just giving them the power for six months. They were giving it to them for the rest of the administration," Graves said.

Make no mistake about it, this bill is a vast expansion of power. See talk left for more discussion and how a President with 25% approval rating can strong arm this Democratic Congress. I am disgusted.

NSA Wiretapping Program Only Part of the Surveillance Program

When will we find out the full extent of the Bush administration's encroachment into our civil liberties? When will it be important to ask these questions? In response to Arlen Specter's call to explain the perjury by Alberto Gonzalez Mike McConnell, the director of National Intelligence revealed that the NSA wiretapping and data mining programs are only part of a series of surveillance programs issued under one executive order by the President.

Rawstory reported on the story this morning:

Bush's executive order authorized "a number" of intelligence activities. The name created by the Bush team -- 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' -- applied only to "one particular aspect of these activities," McConnell wrote.

"This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly, because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell said.

The Post did not say that the only reason warrantless wiretapping was acknowledged in the first place was due to a groundbreaking article by James Risen, that exposed the program in the New York Times.

"News reports over the past 20 months have detailed a range of activities linked to the program, including the use of data mining to identify surveillance targets and the participation of telecommunication companies in turning over millions of phone records," Eggen adds. "The administration has not publicly confirmed such reports."

When is illegal illegal with these guys? To try and clear Gonzalez from Perjury, the administration offers up more illegal programs. And the press just blinks like robots.