11 AM ET TODAY: ThinkProgress Radio
By on Feb 10th, 2006 at 10:48 am
11 AM ET TODAY: ThinkProgress Radio
Today’s show is over, but you can still listen to the podcast. ThinkProgress Radio will be back next Friday.
ThinkProgress Radio debuted last week with a two-hour State of the Union wrap-up featuring John from AmericaBlog, ReddHedd from Firedoglake, Bill from Liberal Oasis and Sean-Paul from the Agonist.
ThinkProgress’ Judd, Faiz, and Nico and Sirius Radio’s Christy Harvey will be back on the air this morning at 11 AM ET to give the inside scoop about how they got the Abramoff emails (reported this morning in the Washington Post and the New York Times) and where the story goes from here.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Also: John from AmericaBlog will be back to talk about raising $5,400 for the injured Iraq War soldier who was being forced to pay for his lost body armor.
I’ve got a better idea. Let’s find out who the desk driving f******* in the army is who has the responsibility of enforcing that rule and make him pay, and his bosses. The damned Pentagon bureaucrats kill more Americans than the enemy and I’m sick of the brass getting away with long vacations and fat pensions while our fighters get screwed. If you want to do something for your country and soldiers find those Pentagon shits and make them accountable.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:18 amWhere am I ? What’s going on? IRI that made sense. Congratulations.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:37 amThe soldier should be helped to pay anyway to prove a point.
for some fun reading check out this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
I especially like the bit about superiors (plural)
As for IRI I have never doubted the idea that he wants our troops to be safe, we all do. I just don’t agree with his the normal vile he spews.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:53 amThinkProgress Radio?
February 10th, 2006 at 9:58 amSweet! I’m there.
IRI, I mostly agree with your post, but it’s not just the desk driver who’s responsible. We’ve been told innumerable times by Bush, Cheney and Rummy that our army is the “best equipped” in the world, that the generals “just have to ask” for equipment and they’ll get it. Obviously, this is just a pack of lies, especially as they have been saying this pretty much from day one. And those untold borrowed Chinese billions of dollars that we’ve been shelling out, where the hell has all that gone? Unfortunately, this administration has a history of all talk, no action, no oversight. In the case of protecting and saving the lives of our troops, this is reprehensible and, IMHO, criminal.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:16 amUnfortunately, this administration has a history of all talk, no action, no oversight. In the case of protecting and saving the lives of our troops, this is reprehensible and, IMHO, criminal.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
It doesn’t matter what administration is in office the desk jockeys hold their jobs for twenty or thirty years. Blaming the Commander and Chief isn’t the answer. The answer is to make the shit roll uphill for once. I’d start with the guy who signed the notice that the boy had to pay for the equipment. What’s that guys name? Lean on him and get the next one up the ladder until you find the group who is responsible for the inflexibility in the system. It will be some bean counting general staff officers who have never fired a gun.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:29 amI tried to listen during the state of the union and could never get it . Any suggestions? Thanks all suggestions appreciated.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amIs it sirius only?
February 10th, 2006 at 10:53 amlisten live link isn’t working! Gives a 404 error.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:56 amIt comes up in Itunes but no signal.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:57 amIt’s starts at 11:06. You won’t hear anything until then.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:59 amThe streaming has started. You should hear music, we start at 11:06.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:00 amIf you want to do something for your country and soldiers find those Pentagon shits and make them accountable.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 10, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Wouldnt one of those be the Commander in Chief IRI?
KAAaaAABBBlLLLLAAAAaaaaMMmm!
IRI has just shot off his entire Ass.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:02 amYaY IRI I knew you would do it eventually.
Roger THAT! chemical brothers?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:03 amAnway..
February 10th, 2006 at 11:04 amDid you guys see where they agreed upon the parts of the patriot act yesterday? Any Info there? mr ho want kno
#1, #5, & #6
I-RIGHT-I,
Like Jane, I (surprisingly) agree with many of the sentiments expressed in your post #1. Everyone who had a hand in denying the payment shuld answer for it. But Jane is also right in that the fault lies at the top, not with some “bean counting general staff officer.”
Do you remember the time when we almost ran out of bullets in Iraq because of the poor pre-war planning? (Fact, not opinion.)
Stories about our troops having to do without body armor have not only be documented in the media, but here at TP by some of the vets who were there at the time. Interviews with manufacturers of armor for the humvees were shown on television in which they said (paraphrased), “It’s not that we’re not operating at full capacity and can’t keep up with demand. We’re not operating at full capacity and we haven’t been asked to produce more.”
The fault for the way in this war has been conducted lies with the leadership of President bush and Secretary Rumsfeld.
While I do not completely agree with you, it’s nice to see that you recognized a problem exists that needs immediate attention, though I disagree with the attention you think it should get.
Peace on Earth.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:04 amFikn dial up here… no can do ray-diddy-O
X^B
February 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amOEBT
#16 correction:
The paraphrased quote should have read:
“It’s not that we’re operating at full capacity and can’t keep up with demand. We’re not operating at full capacity and we haven’t been asked to produce more.”
I regret the error. Also, I did not intentionally forget to capitalize President Bush’s name. That’s not my style.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:07 amIt’s not working in winamp, I get a timeout error.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:08 amSeems to be working now — comes up in my Windows Media Player…
February 10th, 2006 at 11:09 amWorking well on windows media player
February 10th, 2006 at 11:10 amGreat. Feel free to call in or leave comments and questions here. We’ll address them on the air.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:12 amIRI:
Is it your position that low-level employees are the ones who make the rules? That’s just ridiculous. Policies are created at the top, and enforced by the bottom.
What you are promoting is the idea of finding a scapegoat rather than addressing the source of the problem: the administration’s policies.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:13 amThanks Amanda,
It works fine in WMP
February 10th, 2006 at 11:15 amWorks on iTunes for me…but the voiceover you have introducing the radio segment or the guests is creepy as heck.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:21 amWorks with Real Player also.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:23 amAre all the Abramoff emails in ALL-CAPS ?
I hope the prosecution team shaves a couple years off of whatever plea deal they were going to offer him, just to help discourage ALL-CAP activity. Kill two birds with one stone, reduce arrogant corruption alongside arrogant text.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:24 amIt works in RealPlayer, too – just cut ‘n’ paste the link:
http://thinkprogress.org/thinkprogress.m3u
February 10th, 2006 at 11:32 amHere is a simple question: What effect if any does the fact that the Attorney General did not have to give sworn testimony during his recent apperance before the Senate actually have on the Senate itself? Didn’t chairman Specter say it was illegal to lie before Congress regardless. Why not take the oath? Thanks, show sounds great!
February 10th, 2006 at 11:33 amNo luck with WMP.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:34 amsounds pretty far fetched
nows it asians and al qaeda…..
Some Doubt Seriousness Of Terror Scheme Described By Bush
February 10, 2006
Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON — Several U.S. intelligence officials are playing down the relative importance of an alleged al-Qaida plot to strike the West Coast after Sept. 11, 2001, cited by President Bush Thursday in defense of his campaign against terrorism.
Bush, under pressure from Congress, offered for the first time a vivid account of what he said was the foiled plot to crash a hijacked commercial airliner into a Los Angeles skyscraper.
ADVERTISEMENT
February 10th, 2006 at 11:36 amBush said four Southeast Asians who met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in October 2001 were taught how to use shoe bombs to blow open a cockpit door and steer a plane into the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. But Asian authorities captured the four first, he said.
Are you guys going to make the broadcast available via podcast?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:38 amThanks!
February 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amWhere does the investigation surrounding the warrantless wiretaps go from here?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amWhat are the real chances that the House will hold their own hearings and undertake an investigation? What would it take to generate an independent counsel inquiry?
LOL
3 guys in their underwear drinking Strohs…
February 10th, 2006 at 11:46 amThere’s a detail that has been bothering me and I was wondering if you good folks would help to clear it up for me.
Statement made by the Preznit in 2004 (paraphrased): “Whenever you hear about a wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.”
The White House PressSec Scooty McCliar states that he was referring specifically to roving wiretaps under the Patriot Act. I don’t think the average American recognizes the difference between a roving wiretap and the government wiretaps. Can you guys clarify it?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amBalls to the walls is not dirty. It refers to a governor. When a skater spins as their arms get close to their body they spin faster, as they spread their arms out they slow. In the old days they would hang balls on steam engines. As the arms with the balls lifted, it would govern the speed. They would build walls around these so when they flew off damage would be minimized. Thus balls to the walls.
Sorry so geeky, but you need to clean up your filthy minds!
February 10th, 2006 at 11:48 amFor those of us on the west coast could you give us a more advanced notice. Thanks.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:50 amWow, I-RIGHT-I,
You’re coming around. We have been bitching about this since the begining of the war.
Remember Rumsfeld saying “You go to war with the Army you have…”
Rumsfeld was talking about the soldiers not having the proper armor for their person and vehicles. If you would just slow down from time to time, you would realize we just want whats best for the soldiers. That means getting them the proper armor and not keeping them someplace they shouldn’t be.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:52 amRadio is a great idea, but you should also set up a podcast which, as I’m sure you know, is incredibly easy to do and will greatly extend your coverage.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:53 amWe are going to have a podcast.
It’ll be available a little later.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:54 amNicho
Gonza tried to dance around the confusion you reference when he stated that Bush is not a lawyer and, while not clearly referencing the difference between roving wiretaps and government wiretaps, we should all just give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He’s a very, very busy guy and doesn’t have time for legal niceties or intricacies.
I think it was Feingold who indicated that an audio or video sample of the 04 Buffalo speech, which Specter refused to allow in, makes it clear that the President was stepping outside of his discussion of roving wiretaps and was talking about wiretaps in general.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:55 amI-RIGHT-I,
Would you still support this stance if the ladder ends up going to Rumsfelds desk? The desk jockey is only following orders that he gets from his superior, his superior cannot act inthis fashion without and orfer from the DoD. The DoD can’t hand out these kinds of orders except from somebody real high up on that ladder.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:56 amuh – just wait spudge…he’s gonna tell you that rummy’s statement meant that it’s clonton’s fault – he went to war with what clinton left him…didn’t you know?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:57 am(i can’t remember which troll threw that one up a while back…amazing)
Thanks Bryan.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:01 pmNicho (the other one),
I have posted this before and I will many more times. This should answer all of your Alberto Gonzales hearing questions or raise more.
The real reason Alberto Gonzales was not sworn in on February 6, 2006 is because he knew he would have to lie to cover-up for Bush’ illegal warrantless wiretaps.
White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
White House
July 14, 2004
President’s Remarks at Ask President Bush Event
White House
June 9, 2005
President Discusses Patriot Act
Monday February 6, 2006, in his unsworn “testimony†Alberto Gonzales said that when Bush was talking about getting court orders, he meant roving wiretaps only.
Washington Post
February 6, 2006
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority – Transcript of Hearings
FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I’d like to make clear that, for me, at least, this hearing isn’t about whether our nation should aggressively combat terrorism; I think we all agree on that. And it’s not about whether we should use sophisticated electronic surveillance to learn about terrorist plans and intentions and capabilities; we all agree on that. And it’s not about whether we should use those techniques inside the United States to guard against attacks; we all agree on that.
But this administration is effectively saying, and the attorney general has said it today, it doesn’t have to follow the law.
And this, Mr. Attorney General, I believe, is a very slippery slope. It’s fraught with consequences.
The Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program. They have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to Al Qaida or what minimization procedures are in place. We know nothing about the program other than what we read in the newspapers.
And so it comes with huge shock, as Senator Leahy said, that the president of the United States in Buffalo, New York, in 2004, would say, and I quote, “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.â€
Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?
GONZALES: No, I don’t, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people.
I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you’re talking about, he said — he was referring to roving wiretaps.
And so I think anyone…
FEINSTEIN: So you’re saying that statement only relates to roving wiretaps, is that correct?
GONZALES: Senator, that discussion was about the Patriot Act. And right before he uttered those words that you’re referring to, he said, “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talk about wiretaps, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order.â€
GONZALES: So, as you know, the president is not a lawyer, but this was a discussion about the Patriot Act, this was a discussion about roving wiretaps. And I think some people are trying to take part of his statement out of context, and I think that’s unfair.
FEINSTEIN: OK, fair enough. Let me move along.
Alberto Gonzales flat out lied. Anybody that wants to deny this fact, is only fooling themselves. Gaonzales lied to cover-up George Bush’ illegal program.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:16 pmkaty
And I would fire back with:
Washington Post
August 9, 2001
Rumsfeld Mulls Two Options: Status Quo or 10% Military Cut
So, when Bush and pals got into office, Rumsfeld had two options he wanted to go with: One keep the military the same as Clinton left it or two cut it by 10%.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe Worst Parts Remain Unchanged
A Raw Deal on the Patriot Act
By Sen. RUSSELL FEINGOLD
counterpunch.org
I understand that some of my friends and colleagues in the Senate have come to an agreement with the White House on reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
While I respect these Senators greatly, I am gravely disappointed in this so-called deal. The White House agreed to only a few minor changes to the Patriot Act conference report that could not get through the Senate back in December. These changes do not address the major problems with the Patriot Act that a bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years. We’ve come too far and fought too hard to agree to reauthorize the Patriot Act without fixing those problems. A few insignificant changes just doesn’t cut it. I cannot support this deal, and I will do everything I can to stop it.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pmI-RIGHT-I,
Would you still support this stance if the ladder ends up going to Rumsfelds desk?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Of course. Rumsfeld doesn’t owe me any money.
The desk jockey is only following orders that he gets from his superior, his superior cannot act inthis fashion without and orfer from the DoD. The DoD can’t hand out these kinds of orders except from somebody real high up on that ladder.
It’s got nothing to do with orders. It’s longstanding policy to charge a guy if he loses company property out of neglect or whatever. It’s not a bad policy it’s just got to be flexible and somebody ought to be able to say in this case that the man was not responsible for losing his blood soaked body armor.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pmWow, 18 months later and we agreee on one thing.
If somebody, out of stupidity (losing body armor would be considered stupid) lost some equipment, they should pay for it, but if it is cut off him while medics are attending to him, that needs to be written off.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:18 pmLoved the show. Keep up the good work!
February 10th, 2006 at 1:49 pmIf somebody, out of stupidity (losing body armor would be considered stupid) lost some equipment, they should pay for it, but if it is cut off him while medics are attending to him, that needs to be written off.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 10, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Completely right. What I think a lot of people who have never experienced military life do not understand is the difference between “blame” and “responsibility”. Just because you are not to blame for something happening (or failing to happen) does not mean that you are not responsible. Your blamelessness might mitigate your punishment, but if you’re responsibile for something, then you’re responsible. If you don’t like that arrangement, then don’t agree to accept responsibility in the first place.
When I was stationed at Ramstein AB, the one troop I supervised came to me embarrassed because he found out his wife hadn’t paid their German landlords in three months. The First Sergeant called us both in and he told my troop, “Get this fixed right away. I hate getting letters like this.” Then he turned to me and said, “And if he doesn’t get this done, you’re going to be in here explaining to me why.” So I faced the very real possibility of an Article 15 for something I had absolutely no direct control over, short of paying the rent out of my own pocket.
So, yeah, if a soldier loses equipment due to his own incompetence or stupidity, then he should have to pay for it. But if equipment is taken off him by medics, that’s neither his fault nor his responsibility. (If anyone’s, I would guess it would be the responsibility of the medics who removed the gear to return it to him or document its destruction for him.)
February 10th, 2006 at 2:15 pm[...] The reason it bothered me was due to the fact that anyone watching with any interest probably wouldn’t know the difference between a roving wiretap and one of the illegal ones that we Dems are making such a stink about. Over at ThinkProgress, during their live radio show, I posed the question to them. While they didn’t get around to seeing that question before wrapping up for the day, TP Reader Spudge_Boy was kind enough to provide me with some more details. [...]
February 11th, 2006 at 11:50 pmWow, 18 months later and we agreee on one thing.
If somebody, out of stupidity (losing body armor would be considered stupid) lost some equipment, they should pay for it, but if it is cut off him while medics are attending to him, that needs to be written off.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
It’s only been a couple of months but I can understand why you think it’s much longer.
February 13th, 2006 at 6:09 pm