Gawd, can't ya just feel the love... Our VA Secretary says that registering voters, which would be primarily disabled vets, in VA facilities is a "partisan" distraction! How big of him! His reasoning, you might ask?
"VA remains opposed to becoming a voter registration agency pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, as this designation would divert substantial resources from our primary mission," Peake said in an April 8th letter to Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA). He was referring to a 1993 federal law that allows government agencies to host voter registration efforts.
What? They'd be forced to divert precious funds from the wonderful upkeep of Walter Reed? Or from the staff's payroll that just so happens to audit each and every application for VA benefits, as opposed to the IRS standard of auditing a mere 6% of filers... This is merely another outrage, atop an already extensive list, but, it needs to be highlighted! Yep, Shrub and the Goopers really has the best interests of our brothers-in-arms at heart! If you get a chance, send an email to either Kerry or Feinstein for applying some pressure to VA...
"The Department of Veterans Affairs should provide voter materials to veterans," Feinstein said. "I believe the cost of providing these voter materials is minimal. It's a small price to pay for the sacrifice these men and women have made in fighting for our nation's freedom. I am disappointed."
"You'd think that when so many people give speeches about keeping faith with our veterans, the least the government would do is protect their right to vote, after they volunteered to go thousands of miles from home to fight and give that right to others," Kerry said. "And yet we've seen the government itself block veterans from registering to vote in VA facilities, without any legal basis or rational explanation.
"I will keep fighting with Sen. Feinstein to ensure that veterans aren't facing unnecessary hurdles just to exercise their voting rights."
Fed Up? Register to vote, if you're not, and Vote!
Faced with a possible collapse of the world’s banking system brought on by the greed of Wall Street bankers and money grubbers, the Feds have demanded some sort of rescue operation (paid for by the taxpayers, of course.)
Ever eager to grovel before George Bu$h, Nancy Pelosi and her spineless cohorts in the House have agreed to a proposal that will soften the edge of the greedheads' panic by reducing the Fed interest rate in two steps: ¾ of a point was stripped off the Fed interest rate the day before yesterday, and there will be an additional cut, perhaps half a point, signed off on next week.
Wall Street reacted exuberantly yesterday, with the Dow-Jones Industrial average finishing the day up more than 150 points from the start. We can confidently expect another bog jump next week when they Feds give their best friends another bog wet kiss.
Just to pretend that this recession won’t hurt the middle class and the poor there’s even something in it for you and me: we’ll get token tax “rebate” checks, which are actually part of our 2008 tax return payments/credits. That means you have to pay these rebates back next year. But in the meantime you’ll think Nancy loves you.
WASHINGTON — House leaders and the White House on Thursday announced a tentative agreement on an economic stimulus package of roughly $150 billion that would pay stipends of $300 to $1,200 per household, and more for families with children, plus provide tax incentives for businesses to encourage spending.
The accord was announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. at a Capitol news conference and hailed minutes afterward by President Bush as the fruit of “patience, determination and good will” in both parties.
By now you should understand that if George Bu$h compliments the Dem “leadership” that means he’s laughing at what’s on their chins. And it’s a big load this time.
As it was presented on Thursday afternoon, the package calls for workers who paid income taxes to receive $300 to $600, and couples to receive up to $1,200 — plus $300 more for each child. The stipend, which some lawmakers were calling a “tax rebate,” would be subject to income limits so that the wealthiest taxpayers would not receive it. Payments would go to individuals with adjusted gross incomes under $75,000 and couples with adjusted gross incomes under $150,000. (Late Thursday afternoon, the White House corrected an earlier statement that the $75,000 and $150,000 ceilings applied to taxable incomes.)
Just remember that even some of the politicians are telling the truth. These are “rebates.” If you can remember back a few years when Mr Bu$h fraudulently sent out “rebates” everyone danced for joy. “Oh,what a wonderful kind man he is! He’s giving us our own money early.”
And then we all had to account for it in next year’s tax returns. Watch for the same thing for your 2008 returns.
And even the republicans like this one because not only does it give more tax breaks to businesses, it screws the poor and needy.
[I]t was unclear how the package, without extended unemployment benefits or increased food stamps, would be received by Democrats in the Senate, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who have said that those proposals offered the best prospects for quickly injecting added spending into the economy. [emph added]
Just to be clear, Nancy couldn’t find it in her to fight for the Americans who need the help the most. If you’re out of work, or need help to feed your kids properly, toughski shitsky, as they say in the Polish Army.
There was a time when laws in the United States protected the weak and innocent from predators and warranted that criminals will be punished. That calculus has been reversed in the Age of Bu$h. Now we are all victims and George Bu$h, Dick “dick” Cheney and their criminal partners see us all as sheep to be fleeced.
The latest FISA atrocity, S2248, is due to expire by sunset provision on February 1st. This bill not only allows George Bu$h to have everybody in the US eavesdropped upon, it releases the telecoms from breaking the law (which they did) when they agreed to start wiretapping a month after Messers Bu$h and Cheney stole our White House and then took office in January 2001.
What we now have seen of the Bu$h malAdministration and its policy is that everything it does, says, plans, or initiates has only one basic function: achieving domestic political goals. It requires no stretch of the imagination to understand that the first targets of electronic information capture were Democratic politicians and those journalists and reporters considered unfriendly to the republican Party.
Considering that over the last seven years the Democratic “leadership” has gone out of its way to grovel and bootlick for George Bu$h those first few heady months of listening in on their landline and cell phone calls and emails must have been remarkable. During the height of the Cold War, the heads of GRU and KGB would have killed their mothers, wives, and children for the chance to learn one-tenth of the intelligence data that fell to Mt Bu$h in those first few months. I fail to see why anyone who has thought this out is surprised at what the Democrats have acquiesced to in order to keep their secrets from the public.
And now Mr Bu$h has demanded that they not only immunize the telecoms from legal liability, but also himself and others of his criminal gang.
And the Democrats, desperate to hide their privacy from their employers, the citizens of this country, will grant him what he wants, yet again.
Senator Chris Dodd has pledged to filibuster this bill. Why not contact his office and thank him for this effort?
If you think this is the wrong way to run a country, call your Senators.
In fact, it might not be a bad idea to call Harry Reid because he’s the one who’s most anxious to accommodate Mr Bu$h. Despite the fact that he’s in this Bu$h enabling up to his scrawny turkey neck he’s still a US Senator, and it’s appropriate to be diplomatic and polite when talking to his staffer.
Senator Harry Reid Harry (R - NV) (202) 224-3542 [OK, he's not officially an "r" - he just acts like one. as I said, I'd love to know what George Bu$h heard about his phone calls early in 2001.]
You could probably ask Senator Reid’s staffer why republicans are allowed to just say they want to filibuster and that’s good enough to kill a bill, but he’s going to force democrats to actually do the filibuster.
Senator Harry Reid Harry (R - NV) (202) 224-3542 [OK, he's not officially an "r" - he just acts like one. as I said, I'd love to know what George Bu$h heard about his phone calls early in 2001.]
You could probably ask Senator Reid’s staffer why republicans are allowed to just say they want to filibuster and that’s good enough to kill a bill, but he’s going to force democrats to actually do the filibuster.
UPDATE: Erroneous link fixed. I am a sloppy man sometimes.
If you’re a veteran of OIL, OIF, or OEF, or have served six months on active duty since 9/11/201, I want you to know that the evil libruls in Massachusetts, who hate America so much they want to destroy everyone’s marriage by allowing same-gender couples to have the same rights you and I have, also hate the troops.
Hundreds of veterans' bonuses are going uncollected in the State of Massachusetts. Thanks to the state's Welcome Home Program, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans receive $1,000 while other veterans who served more than six months since Sept. 11, 2007 receive a $500 bonus. However, only about 13,000 of the state's 27,000 eligible residents have applied for the bonuses. Massachusetts veterans can call the State Treasurer's office at 617-367-9333, ext. 859, to request bonus application materials.
You can tell they hate the troops because they’re begging people who haven’t yet applied to call in for the application.
One day my man will come. He’ll be tall (or maybe short) broad-shouldered (or maybe slight) with a full head of flowing locks (unless he’s bald.)
One thing I do know is that he’ll be a rip-snorting progressive/liberal who will stand up in front of the nation’s video cameras and tell the truth. His eyes will flash the fire of outrage and smoke will pour out of his ears as he describes how my country was nearly dealt a death blow by criminals.
He’ll speak the truth about this corrupt political system we’ve got in this country. He’ll kook right into the camera’s fish-eye lens (ignoring the fish-faced media-drone standing alongside with a microphone and a pre-printed list of “gotcha” questions furnished by Corporate Headquarters) and he’ll say “The republican Party in this country is a pack of lying, stealing, skeaving warmongering poodle-fucking baby rapers. Each and every one of the national and state republican politicians would go to their children’s funerals and steal the pennies off their kids’ eyes.”
He won’t be afraid of the pearl-clutching bullcrap the republicans have trademarked. In fact, as one of them gets the vapors over what he said, my hero will gently push the Victorian fainting couch out of the way with the toe of his shoe, whistle innocently, and murmur solicitously when the faker lands on his fat wallet.
One day my man will come. (Sure my man could be a woman, but it won’t be Hillary Clinton, unfortunately.) Until my man comes I’ll just content myself with Dan Hartman fronting up the Sorels.
As we stagger off into the year of 2008 I’ll offer my very best wishes to all of you. May your health be better than in 2007. May happiness and comfort surround you and your loved ones. May you be able to hold onto your jobs in Mr Bu$h’s “booming” economy, and if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, I hope you keep it, and that it will cover you and your family in time of need.
Finally I hope that we will be allowed to hold elections next November, and despite the desperate efforts of the republican Party to steal yet another election, I hope sufficient numbers of outraged patriots stand on the poll lines for the 6, 7, 8, or 9 hours necessary to overcome the republican voting machines and elect a Democrat to the White House, and enough real Democrats to Congress so that we may begin the process of removing the stain George Bu$h and his fellow conspirators have put on our nation.
Thank you, one and all, for reading Main and Central through this year.
Many well-qualified writers have poured copious amounts of ink, and untold billions of electrons, onto a continuing record of the assault by the Bu$h malAdministration upon the US Constitution, the foundation of our way of life, and I’ve tried to add my own small efforts to the total history.
The historical record is long, and exhausting to contemplate. I used to think “Someone should be keeping a record of all this, because one day, prosecutors and historians will need this.”
It seems someone might have been. Either that or markthshark has mad research skills.
By all means invest the time and patience to read the entire piece. Save your anger until the end, and then call or write your CongressCritters.
If you have nothing more left in you to say, just tell them that we’re watching them.
Canadian professor Laure Paquette specializes in trying to figure out how the underdog thinks, with her research examining the types of strategies that those who face overwhelming odds tend to use.
Now the Ontario academic will be taking that expertise and applying it to special forces and the war on terror.
Ms. Paquette, a political scientist at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay has been asked to conduct research for U.S. special forces in the hopes some of her findings can give American commandos an edge in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.[emph added]
Interesting idea. I wonder whether we could hire her to work with elected Democratic politicians?
"We're going to be looking at the thinking, the characteristics of the thinking and the kind of mistakes that terrorists have made," said Ms. Paquette. "Can we use this as a framework to understand and predict what they're going to do and be more effective in fighting them? Can the people fighting the terrorists themselves improve their practices, planning and carrying out special operations?"
Ms. Paquette will be working in the New Year with the Joint Special Operations University in Florida, the organization responsible for educating U.S. special forces personnel.
U.S. Lt.-Col. Michael McMahon, head of the university's strategic studies department, said he believes Ms. Paquette's research could prove valuable in fighting terrorists.
"The people that are competing with the existing order -- the violent extremists -- have an existing strategy and their strategy is one of relative weakness to the United States," he said. "And that's what's driving our interest in the doctor's research."
So, if I understand this properly, we’re winning. We’re beating the pants off terrorism – except in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and (maybe) Indonesia. And yet, our military leaders, who keep insisting the game is almost over, now want to try to understand the terrorist.
Don’t build permanent bases in the Middle East, don’t station troops in other people’s countries, and don’t practice economic and cultural imperialism there.
Can I now be paid half of what you’re planning to pay Ms Paquette?
A tip of the too-small Kevlar helmet to The Agonist.
Americans woke Saturday to the news that the collaborators currently masquerading as leaders of the Democratic Party were determined to once again give George Bu$h every last penny in the cupboard in a desperate attempt to – do something or other. No one seems to be quite sure what.
The little bunnies were so frightened of a coward and bully, supported by 24% of the walking zombified of the nation, that they were going to give him all the ca$h he was demanding by holding the US troops in the Middle East as hostages. While they once stood up on their hind legs and pounded their little hollow chests before servilely caving in, this time they weren’t even going to do the kabuki for the cameras.
Senior lawmakers and Congressional aides said the broad outlines of the proposal called for the House to consider $30 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, as well as money for military bases and support programs for military families to quiet fears of Pentagon layoffs because of a lack of money.
…
After the measure returns to the House for a final vote, Democrats opposed to the war are likely to vote against it but may not be able to stop it. The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.
But Democratic leaders now say they have concluded that a logjam of 11 appropriations bills cannot be broken without acceding to at least some of the president’s demand for more war money.[emph added]
I was cruel about this story on Saturday because the Democratic Party has shamed me and my country. Cruel, but accurate. Years of being double-teamed by the criminal conspiracy known as the republican Party and their running dog lackeys of the corporate media has made them so frightened of a harsh word or darkening brow that the Dems quiver in reaction when a coffee cup is dropped. They no longer plan political strategy in order to defend the nation. Now they sit down in a locked room and work out just how they are going to gull the country once again while they enable the criminals to steal more of our heritage and treasure.
This morning’s WaPo is carrying an article by Jonathan Weissman reporting that David Obey (D-Wisc) thinks he’s had enough.
A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.
Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr Bu$h, who never saw a middle class or poor American that he wasn’t willing to crawl across broken glass to kick, had demanded that there be no additional or new domestic spending beyond that which he felt was appropriate for people dying the slow death of an unresponsive economy that has been tailored to increase the wealth of large corporations and a very small and elite group of multi-millionaires.
House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president's request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.
But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.
Mr Obey thinks he may have discovered a simple solution that he feels might goad Congress to stand up on its hind legs for once. Just take the pet projects (“earmarks”) out of the bill. As our under-worked and over-paid Congresscritters head home for their latest time off from work they want to show the folks in their districts that they’re squeezing the golden goose to best effect. There’s nothing more embarrassing than going home for Christmas without a nice little giftwrapped present for that big contractor in your home district.
Obey's proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects.
White House spokesweasel Tony Fratto doesn’t care what Congressman Obey proposes. Following the official Bu$h malAdministration policy of showing maximum contempt for Congress at all times, he sniffed dismissively, "Different day, different Democrat, different direction. Our position hasn't changed[.]"
Many rank-and-file republicans are a bit frightened of this situation since earmarks were shaved off a 2006 appropriations bill and a 2007 spending bill passed earlier this year. The thought of bringing home empty bags two years in a row has frightened a number of them and they have begged Minority Leader John Boehner to lighten up a bit and work with the Democrats.
Knowledgeable observers noted Mr Boehner is more frightened of Mr Bu$h than of his own rank-and-file.
I was sort of mentally recapping the latest news – the asshole cowardly Vichy Dems caving in once again to a textbook psychopathic killer, the stunning revelation about why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, the news that even though the Intelligence Community understands Tehran is not threat to the US, we’re still going to bear down on them.
It all reminds me of an episode in Joe Wambaugh’s Police Story series from the 1970s in which a SWAT officer, played by Tony LoBianco, is horribly burned in a helicopter crash during a training exercise. Being treated in the hospital, subjected to daily torture as his bandages are removed, crazed by morphine, he asks the doctor whether the fight is all worth the pain, and all the doctor can tell him is that he has to decide that for himself.
He balls up and decides to tough it out, of course, and fights through, eventually returning to a somewhat normal family life.
So, fuck you, George Bu$h. And you too, Nancy Pelosi. The same to you, Harry Reid you corrupt Las Vegas pimp. Up your DLC-fellating ass, Steny Hoyer, you triangulating prick,
We’re going to beat all your sleazy, corrupt, cowardly asses and take back our country. And then we’ll see just who the hell we put in jail.
Just over a week ago George Bu$h stuck another finger in the eyes of the 75% of Americans who want to see an end to the occupation of Iraq.
WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agreed Monday to hold formal talks next year to decide the future of US forces in Iraq and other thorny issues, the White House said.
Washington hopes to complete those negotiations -- meant to institutionalize a long-term political, economic and military partnership between the United States and Iraq -- by July, the US "war czar" told reporters.
"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said at a White House briefing.
A puzzled man might ask why it is necessary to plan to continue the occupation past 2008 if the Iraqis are in fact more and more able to stand on their own two feet. And why shouldn’t it stand alone if it is in fact a sovereign nation? We did have all those purple fingers, after all.
Lute said issues like how many US soldiers would stay in Iraq and for how long, and whether there will be permanent US bases, would be decided in next year's negotiations.
"The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said.
Monday's announcement means that the Bush administration and Iraq will work out the future of US forces in Iraq in the shadow of the November 2008 US presidential election and despite sky-high US public opposition to the war.
Any resulting agreement could limit the ability of Bush's successor to break with the current US strategy, as Democratic candidates have promised to do amid increasingly vocal calls for a US withdrawal.
Faced with a cratering public opinion of the republican Party it becomes more and more important for Mr Bu$h and his criminal cronies to tie the hands of a Democratic successor in as many ways as possible. The dearth of humanoid candidates for President among the republican Party makes it more likely the next occupant of our White House will be a war fan like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, both of whom are on record supporting and opposing the Iraqi occupation, depending on the day of the week and the wind direction.
The entire Beltway zoo parade seems to think it’s vital to keep Americans occupying Middle Eastern countries from now until Tish'ah B’Av. Apparently the recent NIE finding that Iran really isn’t seeking nuclear weapons, or if it is there will be a five to ten year lead time until that happens, is merely a threshold to be stepped over.
That 75% by the way, includes 58% of US military families who have had George Bu$h’s ego-war right up to their last nerve.
WASHINGTON -- Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.
…
[A]mong those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."
Obviously Ms Datta doesn’t understand the importance of keeping enduring forces in Iraq for the next four or five decades, or until the oil is finally exhausted.
A recent announcement indicates that Big Oil is about to complete the first phase of their Oil Grab of Iraq’s wealth. Ben Lando “Mr Oil” of the UPI, has the details:
Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector.
Iraq's proven oil reserves are only smaller than those in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and the country is only about 30 percent explored.
Iraq produces about 2.4 million barrels per day, a recent increase from the 2 million bpd post-invasion average, but far below what its reserves could handle. Its oil sector is suffering from decades of Saddam Hussein-era mismanagement, U.N. sanctions and the effects of the current war.
A couple of notes in front: the “Saddam Hussein-era mismanagement” is a code phrase for “ a lot skimmed off the top.” The normally squint-eyed oil professionals understand there will still be a rake-off, but now it will be going to a new pack of wolves in Iraq. The new contracts will be placed despite the lack of a national oil law regularizing the rape of Iraq’s future wealth. They will be placed only for technical assistance and production advice for presently-producing oil fields, and only with the large companies (Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips, and probably ExxonMobil.)
The decision of how to develop a resource that provides for nearly the entire federal budget is political and controversial. To each side's alarm, the national government will rely on a Saddam-era law and Iraq's Kurdish region is signing deals on its own.
A September NY Timesarticle noted the Department of State viewed a contract between the Kurdish Regional Government and the Hunt Oil Company of Texas as being “at cross purposes with the stated United States foreign policy of strengthening the country’s central government.” Apparently now that the Central Government has decided to pay ball too, the Hunt agreement is more acceptable.
Knowledgeable observers note that Mr Ray Hunt, President and CEO of Hunt Oil, is described as “a close political ally of President Bush and serves on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,” in case anyone was concerned about apparent improprieties of undercutting the Central government.
MarketWatch reports executives from BP and Shell were to meet with Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani following Wednesday's meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Abu Dhabi. The global energy information firm Platts reports top ministry and company officials are to meet in Amman this week.
Shahristani himself dropped hints to United Press International in a recent interview. He said he's moving forward with oil deals despite the lack of a new national oil law, a draft of which has been stalled in negotiations for more than a year.
"This has nothing to do with the national oil law. There is no timeline. Whenever we finish our discussions we'll just sign the contracts," he told UPI on the sidelines of the OPEC heads of state summit last month.
"This is basically technical-support contracts," he said, adding the contracts will not be the result of a bidding process. "Selected companies will offer us technical support that we need to develop our producing fields."
So, who gets what?
Shell – Kirkuk
BP - Rumaila
Shell and BHP Billiton – Missan
ExxonMobil – Southern Zubair field
Conoco-Phillips – West Qurna
Dome and Anadarko Petroleun – Sabha and Luhais
Chevron + Total – Majnoon
These fields are all described as “super giants” with at least 5 billion barrels in established reserves. There are other fields not included in the current negotiations that might reach the 5 billion barrel figure.
Mr Lando notes rather blandly that,
Oil company officials met with U.S. officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, prior to the war and since, to discuss contracts for Iraq's oil. Former top officials of the companies were tasked by the U.S.-led occupation with advising the Oil Ministry.
Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst for Global Insight, adds, "This means that it is pay-off time for the majors that have been running training courses for Oil Ministry personnel, reservoir surveys, drawn up work-plans and given general advice during the past years[.] It is clever."
Carl Hulse writes in this morning’s NY Times that patriotic Americans will once again be disgusted by Democratic Party leaders.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — Congressional leaders are assembling a $500 billion package to try to resolve an impasse by providing President Bush with unfettered money for the Iraq war in exchange for new spending on popular domestic programs.
If acceptable to lawmakers and the White House, the package to be considered in the House as early as Tuesday would avert the threat of a shutdown of federal agencies and end a dispute that has lasted months and pitted Congressional Democrats against Mr. Bush and his Republican allies. [emph added]
The Democrats are at a disadvantage here of course because the republicans did this under Newt Gingrch’s speakership and they got away with it. However, our bought-and-paid-for corporate media will not give Dems the same pass they give to the Fascist Party.
Senior lawmakers and Congressional aides said the broad outlines of the proposal called for the House to consider $30 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, as well as money for military bases and support programs for military families to quiet fears of Pentagon layoffs because of a lack of money.
The Senate would then add up to $40 billion for Iraq combat operations, with the expectation the final war spending total would produce enough Republican support to offset defections by House Democrats.
They expect enough republicans will support what Mr Bu$h wants to offset democratic defections!!! Can you imagine that? They’re planning on defeat. They are conceding the game before it is played.
After the measure returns to the House for a final vote, Democrats opposed to the war are likely to vote against it but may not be able to stop it. The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.
But Democratic leaders now say they have concluded that a logjam of 11 appropriations bills cannot be broken without acceding to at least some of the president’s demand for more war money.
Mr Hulse’s article speaks with some authority: the Dems will do their face-saving little dance of responsibility before the cameras and then cave as they wring their hands so helplessly, just as they have done oh so many times before to this coward and bully.
Asked publicly on the House floor on Thursday night whether money for Iraq and Afghanistan that was not tied to a withdrawal deadline would be voted on next week, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, replied, “I anticipate at some point in time that will be the case.”
When I grow up and become President I want to be like George W Bu$h. I want to lie every day of the year to American citizens and to the elected leaders of the country. I want to fritter away hundreds of tons of money and thousands of gallons of American blood on a foreign war designed to make me think my penis is the most prolific and most powerful penis in the world. Yes, that’s right – when you’re President it’s all about your ego, screw everyone else in the world.
I want to break laws, just like a real outlaw. Better than that, I want to tell everyone I‘m going to disregard any laws the taxpayers’ representatives may write – just flat out tell them, “This law may require you to follow its requirements, but I am going to act as if the strictures you incorporated in it don’t apply to me.”
I’m going to mock people at every turn, laugh at their illnesses, infirmities and diseases, piss down the pants leg of every news paper stenographer in the country and dare them to complain, and generally act like I’m one hell of a swell fellow. I’m gonna dare them to act like men and say something or try to do something.
I’m going to demand Congress give me whatever money I feel like asking for and will disparage them publicly for having the unmitigated gall to think they’re entitled to a voice in the governance process.
Just vote me the money you gutless little chickensqueezings.
That egomaniacal eight year old war criminal is right to treat them with complete contempt.
I noted that Judge Mukasey was approved by the Senate, advising and consenting in their full panoply of majestic anti-Americanism. Judge Mukasey of course, is the George Bu$h-approved Attorney General candidate who has spent many years not only practicing the law, but also wearing the black gown and telling other people what the law means, and, furthermore, teaching law to young minds. Yet, strangely enough, this man apparently doesn’t know how to look up what the laws of the United States have to say about torture.
I am curious, however, how it is that when the Senate is asked by us, their constituents, the voters, the taxpayers, their employers, to do something like , ohhh….. end the fucking bloodshed, or stop pissing our money down a hole in the sand, or use a constitutional method of firing a couple of criminals, they can’t do it because “we don’t have 60 votes.”
This morning’s NY Times leads out a pretty powerful editorial about the useless Democrats who’ve agreed to once again sign away the nation’s birthright (what used to be the Constitution) in order to avoid unpleasant results.
Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
The task before Congress was to review and improve an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, that was pushed through the Capitol just before the summer break. That bill endorsed warrantless wiretapping and gutted other aspects of the 1978 law.
House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law. [emph added]
The late summer near-destruction of FISA was facilitated by the Republican Congress at the command of Messers Bu$h and Cheney, who have been hard at work for the last six years plus removing the obstacles contained within the basic document of American government. It is an inconvenient hindrance to what they have planned for the future, and had to be gutted. The Democrats eagerly signed off on the bad law with the cover story of being anxious to take their August vacations, and get back home to brag to their employers about what a great job they were doing. They’ve since acknowledged it was a bad law, conceived in haste, but could always be fixed since it had only a six month lifespan.
Starting from this point, why did they just cave once again this week? A sensible man would be reluctant to speculate but might note the following facts.
During the trial of Joseph Nacchio, the ex-CEO of Qwest Communications, it came to light that Mr Nacchio’s troubles with the Federal Government began after he refused a demand by the Feds to set up a wide-based information-collection system for them immediately after the Bu$h malAdministration set up shop in our White House in January 2001.
It has to be said again and again that this occurred months before 9/11, the alleged reason for electronic monitoring of every durn-burn telephone and computer in the world, it seems.
Earlier this week, the Rocky Mountain Newsbroke word that Joseph P. Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, has accused the National Security Agency of retaliating against his company because he refused to cooperate with a domestic-spying scheme.
The WaPo moved the ball forward today, with a solid front-page piece. The key point to take away from the story, however, is the timing.
Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
A sensible man can safely assume the decision to start this warrantless, unannounced, covert, secret, illegal (how any other adjectives can we add to this description?) program was taken somewhat earlier than February 26th.
Now, Jay Rockefeller did his bit this week to support Mr Bu$h’s desire to extend his dictatorship well past the alleged January, 2009 expiration date by legalizing the crimes of ATT and Verizon .
Ran Singel at Wired explains why Senator Rockefeller was willing to ease the load for ATT and Verizon after their agreement to violate the Constitution long before 9/11 became an excuse for Constitution-raping.
But I was puzzled why Harry Reid has been so ultra-cooperative is shepherding Mr Bu$h’s un-American programs through Congress. I figured either it was ineptitude or having been kicked so many times that he’s incapable of acting like a man, or something more sinister.
Back earlier this year people in the US discussed the NSA “wiretapping” situation, although I always maintained that it was “electronic monitoring” rather than “wiretapping” as such as I felt that the Bu$h malAdministration was availing itself of all possible venues to spy on domestic dissenters, including the obvious ones, such as Democratic politicians, and probably well-known progressive and liberal public names such as Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon. These are names that just pop into mind instantaneously. The point is, I was trying to posit a full court press on all those leading and participating in a public process of opposition to the fascistic tendencies of the Bu$hies.
The purpose of such monitoring is to obtain information, which can be used to circumvent plans or even to obtain information that the holder might not want made public , if you understand where I’m going.
I honestly don’t know at this time. But it does provide one explanation why Harry Reid claims to be prepared to toss 200 years of Senatorial precedent and collegiality into the shitter:
Tim Starks of Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring the Senate's surveillance bill up for floor debate in mid-November. That's despite the hold that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to place on the measure -- something first reported by Election Central's Greg Sargent.
Senator Chris Dodd will place that “hold” on the evil FISA legislation.
Today Senator Dodd will send a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid informing him that he will be placing a hold on FISA legislation that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies who enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.
Take action and add your name to the list of people who don't want the Senate to provide telecom companies with amnesty for violating Americans' civil liberties. Visit http://chrisdodd.com/fisa to stand with Chris Dodd today.
The House today failed to override George Bu$h’s mean-spirited and insane refusal to provide adequate health insurance.
It’s time for America to win a fight against this man.
Please go to this spot and add your name and email to the list of Americans tired of corrupt business as usual in the Bu$h malAdministration.
Mrs Clinton hasn’t yet won the primary election for the Democratic nomination, but the National Corporate Media seems to have already enshrined her as inevitable because nothing sells soap powder like a good controversy, and they know that mention of the Clinton name creates visceral and hysterical response from the Fascist Front.
Like many sensible Progressives, I’m uncomfortable with Mrs Clinton for several reasons. The name is unimportant to me, although knowing Mrs Clinton in the White House means bringing a master at public relations to the fore once again and that heartens me. But the Clintons bring a lot of baggage with them. There’s all that peace and good economy Mr Clinton helped bring about, and the 12 million-odd jobs that were created during his time in the White House, along with the international respect and good will.
This sort of success requires a massive assault on Mrs Clinton. The economic success of Bill Clinton’s Presidency is compared favorably with GHW Bu$h’s time, and when compared against the present occupier of our Oval Office the contrast is even more startling. Thus, the very name Clinton will be decried, turned into the 21st century of Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and, of course, the Rosenbergs.
They are terrified of a competent Democratic President.
LibbySpencer, working off a great commentary by Kevin Drum, has a nice summation about this at The Newshoggers. But first, Mr Drum:
[T]here's a huge difference here. A guy like Giuliani is polarizing because he actively chooses to be. It's part of his persona. He wants people to hate him
Hillary, by contrast, is polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She's "polarizing" only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.
And then Libby:
The people on the street want change and the largest growing demographic is in Independent voters. I'm not so certain enough people will vote to trade one family dynasty for another. Maybe she can win, but winning by a few hundred thousand votes isn't going to heal what's ailing our country. We need a leader that can bring our people together, not one that's going to pound the wedge between us in more firmly.
Granted, the rightwing rage machine hates all Democrats, all liberals and the whole progressive agenda and I agree we shouldn't let them dictate our choices, but that works both ways. We shouldn't not vote for her because they hate her, but neither should we vote for her to prove we can't be bullied. That's just as short-sighted.
Well, yes, but the idea of a couple dozen assorted heart attacks and strokes on the other side of the universe is an attractive thought, isn’t it?
Tonight’s article is brought to you through the courtesy of Doug and the Slugs, a fine Canadian Band who reigned supreme on the old Night Flight Show, bringing forth some remarkably funny music videos.
Drop by their home page to learn how this song goes.
Late night, boozin' oh I'm out of control
Red lights, cruisin', I got no sense of soul
I knew, you knew, hey we both knew the crime
Blacker, bluer, oh I'm back in the line
(Making it work) takes a little longer
(Making it work) takes a little time
(Making it work) takes a little longer
(Making it work) takes a little time
Sometimes the old times, oh they drag onto new
Bad nights, bad wine oh what we made it through
I wonder how I'm still on the case
Help me help you, oh we'll find us a place.
Some people might take heart from this article in today’s WaPo.
The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.
The 377 to 46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy adopted by House Democratic leaders, away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring Republicans to their side. The withdrawal-planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent Iraq war foes, who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political cover for their support of President Bush's policies.
Sounds wonderful! “You’ve got 60 days to tell us what you’re going to do about changing course.”
Not exactly.
Under bill, the defense secretary would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and making a transition from a military mission to one of counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.
The report would have to detail the number of troops necessary for the new missions, the equipment that would have to remain, exactly how troops and materiel would be brought home, and a timeline for the transition. After the initial report, the administration would have to report back every 90 days. Advocates said the continual requirement to report would keep discussions of troop reductions in the forefront of the war debate. [emph added]
So, now we’re saying the Bu$h malAdministration must invent some plans that they know, and the Congress knows, and you know, and I know, will never be used, because our military and foreign policy is held in the fervent scaly grip of people dedicated to keeping US troops fighting in the Middle East until every Arab (and Persian) country has been reduced to the state of social and civic collapse that Iraq now is in.
And notice, please that “Democratic leaders stared down the antiwar left and went forward with the vote.” Well, now, how brave of them! “We’ll show those damned anti-war lefties! We’ll produce another toothless bill.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has said that any Iraq legislation should ensure troop withdrawals, gave no assurance yesterday that he would give the bill a Senate vote.
No, I suppose not. Not with the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which just about begs the Bu$hies to attack Iran, passing 76-23. You couldn’t make Senate Republicans vote for this travesty if you put guns in their ears.
Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), John Tanner (D-Tenn.) insist this is a great moment, a ‘turning point” because it will bring up withdrawal debates every 90 days when the Secretary of Defense must report to Congress. This assumes, of course, that they bother coming back to Congress. I frankly can’t see George Bu$h, who has almost as much contempt for Congress as he has for the Constitution (or you and me, for that point) report anything to Congress.
Nice going Harry, Nancy. Let’s see you “stare us down” when you need some fucking money for the 2008 elections.
On the other hand, there are some Democrats who might actually have taken their testicles out of the escrow vault:
Even as House leaders were pursuing a compromise, three leading House Democrats vowed yesterday that they will not entertain Bush's war funding request until he dramatically changes his Iraq war policy. The lawmakers -- Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.), defense subcommittee head John P. Murtha (Pa.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) -- also proposed paying for any further war funding with a temporary surtax that would add 2 to 15 percent to existing income tax bills.
The surtax idea is a nifty one. When Joe Sixpack starts seeing he’s going to have to start paying today for Mr Bu$h’s ego-war, he might not be such a fan of “killin’ them ragheads” although the 27 percenters will probably happily pay up.
Will corporations also have to ante up, Mr Obey? Yes, it’s really important.
Incredibly enough, Speaker Pelosi doesn’t like the idea of paying today for today’s war.
"Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the President's war. Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax."
But you won’t do any damned thing to stop the war, Ms Pelosi. You’re missing the entire point, of course. Those who oppose the war should be making it as painful as possible for those who like the g_ddamned thing.
The Fourth Horseman, pestilence, has come to Iraq and now Baghdad in the form of a rapidly spreading outbreak of Cholera.
…
adding to the problems of poor water sanitation, of course, are the lack of modern medical treatment and antibiotics that many Iraqis now suffer. If the Iraqis are really unlucky, the outbreak is of the antibiotic resistant 'O139 Bengal' strain first noticed in 1992. Even if it's the older strain, the last epidemic in South America, which began in Peru in 1991, caused 1.04 million identified cases and almost 10,000 deaths.
How can anyone describe this as success, four years and some into the occupation? Where's the surge to deal with this faceless and inhuman killer of innocents? Where are the billions in earmarked funds from the Bush administration?
Meanwhile, in news that’s really important to the “Very Serious People” in our intolerably dysfunctional Washington, Joe Lieberman (R-Tel Aviv) has managed to move us one step closer to killing a lot of Iranians.
Next step: Mr Bu$h designates the Iranian Army in toto as assisting those mythical “someones” who are allegedly making the EFPs that don’t look like Iran’s military weapons and Whining Joe gets his fondest wish.
Disgracefully, acting either from a drug-induced coma, or a very threatening set of candid photos kept in a safe in the White House, or some other incomprehensible reason, the following spineless Democrats voted once again to start another needless war against the wishes of their constituents:
I picked this up from CD at Corrente and the teaser was just so good I had to go look at the full piece. I recommend it to you, too. Hecate compares her first protest, saving the nation from Nixon, to last night, saving the nation from Nixon II.
I've been -- on my own, with friends, with my brilliant Son and heroic D-i-L -- to lots of demonstratios since the ones that I went to with my dad. I've never been to a demonstration where we talked back like this. And, in the end, I thnk it was a good thing. MoveOn and VoteVets won't like it. The establishement Dems will be far less willing to show up for them since they can no longer deliver nice, supportive crowds. But I think that the Dems need to understand, as Carl Levin acknowledged, that the people are way out ahead of Congress and that Congress needs to hustle to keep up. We want an end to the Dems acting undisciplined. Don't tell me that you need nine Republicans when you can't get Liberman and Mary Landrieu and other Democrats to vote as they should. We want an end to this illegal, immoral war. If these Dems can't do it, the netroots can fund and elect, as Atrios says, more and better Dems. [emph added]
Read the whole thing. I’m going to bookmark the essay and read it once a week when BDS and DLC/Dem fatigue set in. Today’s Democratic Party is unlikely to save our nation. They are too close to the fire to smell the smoke and see the flames. They have been too corrupted by the incessant money chase to get funding for the next election.
We really are going to have to get better Dems.
And, in a sense, that is the right answer. It was not Adams’ Sons of Liberty that beat the British. The incendiary handbills of Thomas Paine and Sam Adams didn’t lose to the British again and again, with very few won battles before the end at Yorktown. All of this was done by individuals banding together to defeat the British, enduring years of privation and heartbreak because they wanted to be free of a cruel and corrupt king.
Note to Senator Reid: It would be a really, really good idea to do this twice a week. You will draw the audiences, although I’m sure you want to talk to them, rather than having to listen to them. I think you’ll find, however, that the audiences will get larger, and you’ll end up getting fired up yourself. Let’s face it: we both know that the Senate is too clubby; you Dems think it’s a nice genteel men’s club, and the Republicans understand that they get to club you like baby seals.
If you don’t have the testes for infighting, cooperate with ActBlue to find a young fighter to take your place, and then go off to retire with your millions of dollars.
I think everyone’s pretty well aware of the ongoing revival of the stage production of “Money for the Troops.” It’s time for the “annual emergency supplemental appropriation” for Mr Bu$h’s ego-war in Iraq. This annual comes up every nine months because this has traditionally been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Republican Party ® and words are flexible, and meanings change with circumstances.
This time around the Democrats have insisted on some conditions that impede Mr Bu$h’s imperial delusions and he has had a hissy fit, stating that he knows best because he is the Decider-in-Chief and is the one watching out for the troops, and that’s why he’s extending their one year tours in Iraq to 15 months.
The LA Times has done another poll, because you can never have enough polls. This one, however, is different because it was asked in the context of the Democrats’ suggestion that maybe enough is enough and since there’s no chance of success it’s time to “bring the boys home.” [emph added]
There are quite a few questions, but the two questions involved here show by a statistically slim but meaningful margin Americans would prefer Mr Bu$h to sign the bill as it is, which would be in alignment with other surveys that indicate that they believe there is little point in throwing more blood and money into the gaping maw of Bu$h failure that is Iraq. Further, by just about the same margin, they think if Mr Bu$h continues to insist that his ego-war may not be tampered with and he vetoes this bill, demanding a “clean bill,” the Democrats should return the same bill to him a second time.
This is striking, and here's why. Until now, virtually every poll asking whether people support or oppose defunding the war has asked the question in complete isolation, and public opinion has generally tilted against defunding. But this is to my knowledge the first poll that has asked the question in the political context of the President's current veto threat and the resultant standoff with Congress. In other words, this question is basically asking whether Americans favor Congress caving to Bush after his veto or whether they want Congress to stand up to him. As you can see, a slightly larger group wants the latter.
Yes, this is only one number, but it's noteworthy, and it raises a question -- and we'd love to hear from you readers about this. When Bush vetoes the bill and then accuses Dems of "refusing to fund the troops," what would happen if Dems then replied: "Mr. President, we are funding the troops. We gave you a bill; you vetoed it. But the American people have spoken: They want withdrawal timetables in there. We'll give it to you again, Mr. President; this time, sign it. Do what the American people want you to do."
A cynical man would observe that it isn't what the American people want but rather what the Deciding-Gut-in-Chief wants. Or is G-D still talking to him?
