ThinkFast: February 20, 2007
ThinkFast: February 20, 2007
Despite the Bush administration’s refrain that it is not considering military action against Iran, the BBC reports, “US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure.”
Justice Antonin Scalia is “poised to lead a new conservative majority” on the Supreme Court. “Between now and late June, the court is set to hand down decisions in four areas of law — race, religion, abortion regulation and campaign finance — where Scalia’s views may now represent the majority.”
Attorneys in the Libby trial are due to make their closing arguments today. The New York Daily News reports that, during the course of the trial, the public learned that at least “at least 10 other top [White House] officials” disclosed Valerie Plame’s covert identity.
Women took on slightly more than half of U.S. jobs created in the first part of the decade and made gains in securing the most lucrative openings. … Overall, men gained 1,804,000 jobs and women 1,996,000, or 52.5% of the total increase,” according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report for the years 2000-2005.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) met privately Monday with religious broadcasters in Orlando, “then later said he isn’t catering to conservative Christians.” McCain explained, “What I have found out in my life, is that every time I have done something for political reasons and not the right reasons, I have paid a very heavy price for it — a big price.”
New study shows that strict voter ID rules “can reduce turnout, particularly among minorities.” Turnout in the 2004 elections “was about 4% lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Hispanic turnout was 10% lower; the difference was about 6% for blacks and Asian-Americans.”
Senate Finance Committee Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has warned that he may block the recently passed minimum wage bill unless a larger tax cut package is included.
“A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world’s scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss ‘may no longer be avoided‘ because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Yesterday’s raid on a U.S. outpost in Baghdad are a “possible foreshadowing of attacks to come,” as insurgents target lightly fortified and “relatively isolated” outposts that are an “integral part” of the new U.S. strategy in Baghdad to immerse U.S. forces in Iraqi communities.
And finally: Arizona can’t give up its naked lady mudflaps. “It’s still going to be legal in Arizona for trucks to have splash guards with racist terms and silhouettes of naked women.” The state House last week rejected an amendment that would have banned splash guards with images that are “obscene or hateful.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can someone please explain how a minority member of Congress can block anything? I thought the Dems ran the show being that they own both houses.
Seriously–how can a R block “conferences”? Why didn’t/couldn’t the Dems do this for the previous 4 years?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am“US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure.â€
I wonder what type of flower the Iranians will greet us with?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:09 amWhy the Corporate Media never mentions Dennis Kucinich…
Speaking before a crowd in New Hampshire Sunday afternoon, the six-term Congressman from Ohio railed against his opponents for the Democratic nomination who voted for the war and now say they were fooled.
“What a recommendation that is. Vote for me. I was fooled by George Bush,” said Kucinich to laughter and cheers.
Making reference to Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards, Kucinich said he has the kind of independence to stand up to and people that he can’t be fooled.
“Hillary voted to fund the war 100 percent of the time. Barack voted to fund the war 100 percent of the time. Edwards voted to fund the war 100 percent of the time,” he said. “I opposed this war and opposed funding it.”
He said every member of Congress at the time had the opportunity to learn the facts and vote against the war and its funding. He said the information was there for anyone, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and yet every other candidate voted for it.
“I am opposed to war as an instrument of policy,” he said outlining his 12-point plan for ending what he calls an occupation.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:10 amFibber McCain is now becoming totally “irrelevant” as a serious candidate. He’s contradicting himself daily and has totally lost his identity. His jargon is flat and pat….
As for the military buildup in Iraq, it’s totally Orwellian. When this administration purports that it is NOT doing something, assume just the opposite. It’s double speak. It’s lying….It’s so totally Orwellian.
I heard that Papa Bush’s maiden name was Orwell??? Anyone hear that rumor??
February 20th, 2007 at 9:11 am#2….The Black Dahlia
February 20th, 2007 at 9:12 amMcCain should be asked to identify those times when he had “done something for political reasons and not the right reasons” since he’s been flip-flopping like a flounder so much that no one can really know what he believes.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:20 amThat’s why they’re called ‘contingency’ plans. Proper military planning calls for contingency plans for any eventuality you can think of (and some you probably can’t). Not having plans in place before military action is taken will get our people killed and seriously degrade the mission.
How dare anybody insist that you are who you say you are in order to vote. Why next, they’ll insist that we have ID’s when we go to the bank, or use a credit card.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am#3 I believe that Dennis Kucinich may be the only one of the bunch who is not “on the take” with the corporate media. In fact, I concur wholeheartedly with his comment about “those who were fooled by Bush”. They weren’t fooled – they just fell down on their job! They abdicated their responsibilities to the american people – that’s what they did. They now deserve to pay the ultimate price – since the families of our military are paying that “ultimate price” in the death and maiming of their loved ones – and that is to absolutely NOT vote for anyone who voted to enable this illegal war.
Why is it that Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Wesley Clark were so much more “enlightened” and “were not fooled by Bush”????? Why is that??? Inquiring minds want to know…..
I believe that McCain, Liberman, Hillary, Biden, and Kerry were not “fooled by Bush” at all but had other agendas running concurrent to their logical thought procees vis-a-vis engagement in war…..war profiteering? Who knows….but rest assured they each had their “reasons” for enabling the Shrub.
Now the American people can make them pay for their mistake in judgment. TAND THIS WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS BEING THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT AND DEVASTATING ERROR IN JUDGMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CONGRESS! The people will now have their opportunity to speak…..and voice their disgust for these sycophantic war mongers who voted “yes” and contributed personally to the escalation of this heinous war.
Yes, the American People will now get their “day in court” as they say “NO” With Their Vote in 08!. Maybe that will send the message that our representatives need to buckle down and do their homework and get a good dose of honesty if they intend to represent honest people.
It’s time to make each one of their votes count by voting NO to the enabling war mongers who voted “yes” to this war!
Vote “NO” on McCain, Lieberman, Hillary, Biden, Edwards…..
February 20th, 2007 at 9:32 amVote “YES” on Obama, Kucinich (Feingold and Clark if they decide to run). These are the only ones who deserve to serve us in the highest office in the country. These are the only ones who took their job seriously.
#6 McCain suffers from the same brain dementia as the Shrub – so much flipflopping and lying that he can’t recall what he’s said or done to whom or when…. Now we see Fibber McCain caught in his own web of lies. As they say: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”…..bye, Fibber McCain….You’ve become totally irrelevant to the american landscape because you pimped youself and sold your soul for political gain.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:34 amI heard McCain on radio attacking Rumsfeld, saying that people will not forget that ‘he was the worst Secretary of Defense’.
But Cheney said that Rumsfeld was the brightest and most capable Secretary of Defense….
McCain found him a dead horse to beat on to boost his sagging popularity, even in his own state Arizona!!
Mr. McCain, Rumsfeld is history..what do we do now with this war?!! When the vote was about the war in the Senate…you were not there,you were out of town.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:34 amFirst McCain was “for” Rumsfeld before he was “against” Rumsfeld. Here goes another flip-flop from the quintessential truth twister! Besides, he’s illustrating his level of irrelevancy in even mentioning Rumsfeld who appears to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:39 am#8 Veritas: Kucinich has shown that he will stand up to the Corporate Masters. He did so as a young mayor in Cleveland in 1993 sacrificing his job and reputation. Disentangling Corporation’s tentacles from our government is the most important job of the next president. I know Hillary would not be able to do it.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:39 amKucinich has shown that he will stand up to the Corporate Masters.
Comment by Larry from C
I dont know much but if thats true he will be shot. Why? There is no ruling class that has given up its position pacifically in history. There cant be social or regime change without violence.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am12. Hillary is as much a representative of corporate industrial complex as your typical Repug.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am‘Support of Our troops’…..should not be seperated from ‘Support Our Constitution”. The two work hand in hand, and the ‘latter’ has to govern the ‘first’.
‘Supporting the Constitution is the most vital element of political,social and economical survivability of United States as a functioning power.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am#13 Juan: Here’s the story of Kucinich standing up to corporate power as a young mayor in Cleveland in 1993.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-04.htm
February 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am#7 – Proper military planning calls for contingency plans for any eventuality you can think of (and some you probably can’t). Not having plans in place before military action is taken will get our people killed and seriously degrade the mission.
Did you figure that out before or after we invaded Iraq?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 amThat’s why they’re called ‘contingency’ plans. Proper military planning calls for contingency plans for any eventuality you can think of (and some you probably can’t). Not having plans in place before military action is taken will get our people killed and seriously degrade the mission. Comment by Dale
So, Dale, what were the contingency plans in Iraq?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 amhttp://www.eff.org/
EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers
Updated April 20, 2006
Whether you’re a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you’ve been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.
Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don’t want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that’s under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.
The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help – in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.
But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.
To be clear, this guide isn’t a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you’re being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.
Please note that this guide applies to people living in the US. We don’t have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries’ legal traditions, but we’d like to work with those who do. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here.
Table of Contents
or, see an index of all the questions » http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/questions.php
Blogger Legal Liability Issues
The Overview of Legal Liability Issues FAQ briefly addresses some common legal issues that affect you as a publisher, especially situations where you may face legal claims or threats based on the information you published on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Intellectual Property addresses issues that arise when you publish material created by others on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Section 230 Protections discusses a powerful federal law that gives you, as a web host, protection against legal claims arising from hosting information written by third parties.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Privacy addresses the legal issues surrounding the privacy rights of people you blog about.
Bloggers As Journalists
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Reporter’s Privilege is useful to bloggers who report news gathered from confidential sources.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Media Access can help bloggers who need to get access to public records and government meetings, as well as secure press passes to help with newsgathering.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Freedom of Information Act can help bloggers use open government laws to get information from the government.
Other Legal Issues for Bloggers
The Student Bloggers’ Legal FAQ addresses legal issues arising from student blogging. It focuses on blogging by high school (and middle school) students, but also contains information for college students.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Election Law addresses the legal issues you may face blogging about political campaigns.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues with workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle blowing.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Adult Material addresses the legal issues arising from publishing risque adult-oriented content, including obscenity law, community standards on the Internet, and the new 2257 regulations.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:00 amI dont know much but if thats true he will be shot. Why? There is no ruling class that has given up its position pacifically in history. There cant be social or regime change without violence.
Comment by Juan C — February 20, 2007 @ 9:50 am
And yet, that is exactly what we are trying to do, isn’t it? I would argue that the right-wing political machine has accomplished exactly that, major social and political change without widespread violence. Of course, they had to lie, cheat, bribe, suppress the vote, undermine the rule of law, and so forth, but they have not yet resorted to outright and overt mass physical suppression.
I am not particularly pacifast, although as a Green, that is the ideal I should adhere to. But I hope we can acheive positive change without violence. Otherwise, the progressive movement will lose the attainment of its goals in the process of acheiving them.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:09 amGee, gogreen, last time I was involved in top-secret division and army-level planning was, uh, was, uh…
February 20th, 2007 at 10:12 amHave I just missed it, or has there been no discussion of the Orwellian American Foreign Policy Council’s “Support Peace” ad that all but demands we bomb Iran? A friend saw it several times, he thinks it was on CNN, and forwarded me this YouTube link. Be prepared for crazy.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am#20: With smear media like Fox, Rush and Swiftboats they don’t have to resort to assasinations anymore. They kill ‘em with words now. Too risky to shoot people with guns considering all the cameras out there.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:14 amKucinich is such a hypocrite. Maybe he didn’t vote for the war or funding for it, but he sure was smiling wide as he shook the hands of the Cabinet members, congressional leaders & President as they all walked in for the State of the Union.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:19 amHe definitely didn’t have a problem with any of them then.
#7 Dale
How dare anybody insist that you are who you say you are in order to vote. Why next, they’ll insist that we have ID’s when we go to the bank, or use a credit card.
Please show us some instances of voter fraud that have had any impact on elections. Not to be confused with election fraud, where tens of thousands of votes are recorded wrong or not recorded at all. Not to be confused with the kind of tampering that takes place when a state’s secretary of state is in charge of a candidate’s campaign, and that same secretary of state makes sudden and arbitrary changes to registration requirements (i.e. paper thickness) and rules for provisional ballots and spoiled ballots. Not to be confused with a national party conducting caging of ballots that target minority members serving in the military overseas. And not to be confused with the kind of election interference where robo-calls are made to minority voters giving them the wrong date or location for voting, or where a group will go out and conduct voter registrations and then throw out all of the registration cards filled out by members of one party, or where police set up checkpoints on the roads leading to the polling place, or where Hispanic voters are targeted with phone calls threatening deportation if their papers aren’t all in order when they vote.
Now, when you start to show some concern over all the funny stuff that the Republican party has been pulling, successfully I might add, in its efforts to change the outcome of elections over the past seven years, then maybe your point about a few ineligible voters slipping through might have some merit. In the meantime, Republicans are well aware that stiffening the ID requirements for voters has less to do with stopping ineligible voters from voting than it does with deterring minority voters from voting.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:20 amComment by rachel kinnardi — February 20, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Thank you, Rachel. Keep up the good work.
:-)
February 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am#3, #8, some info to back up your assertions on Sen. Edwards.
Reading through the transcript, it’s clear that in 2003 Sen. Edwards was pro-war, in spite of WMD’s not being found, in spite of ‘the world’ being against the invasion of Iraq.
The Kucinich camp should use this for all it’s worth.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:25 amwow, chimpeach…
February 20th, 2007 at 10:26 amexcellent summation… so simple even a troll could understand…
Comment by Dale — February 20, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Dale is right about contingency plans. The military is tasked with having a ready set of plans for every situation imaginable. However, the Commander-in-Chief may toss those plans out the window, as was done in Iraq. Think back to what happened to the generals who dared give voice to any reality other than what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted to hear. There were plans in place to do it right from the start. Those plans weren’t followed.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:26 amHow dare anybody insist that you are who you say you are in order to vote. Why next, they’ll insist that we have ID’s when we go to the bank, or use a credit card.
Comment by Dale
Forcing citizens to purchase photo ID in order to vote is a form of poll tax. Sure, you and I wouldn’t have a problem providing picture ID, but that’s the world we live in. There are plenty of people who, for whatever reasons, live on a strictly cash basis, do not have bank accounts or credit cards, and would not or could not purchase ID in order to vote. They are still full citizens of this country and should not be disenfranchised.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:26 am“It’s still going to be legal in Arizona for trucks to have splash guards with racist terms and silhouettes of naked women.â€
However, the flaps must bear the image of King George the Dumb on the side closest to the wheels that catches all the mud.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:29 amHey Clyde, you dropped off the map on facebook. What’s up?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:33 am#25… glad you asked. First look here. From the executive summary:
Oh yeah, notice that the Chairman of this organization is a past executive director of the DNC.
Now read this. Oh no… this one also involves a state-level Secretary of State… but this one’s in CA.
And check out this.
Hmm… and that was just in 4 minutes, and look at the sources… not a right-wing blog amongst them.
Well, chimpeach… watcha say now?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:34 amoff topic, hey juan, do you have a facebook profile? i went into facebok and looked at the TP group which looked like “young white professionals of america”;
i still don’thave any good reading for you for the European left. Most of the literature I have is WWII and post WWII stuff focusing more on Fascism/authoritarian regimes.
A couple that come to mind:
A New Generation Draws theLine,Chomsky
Origins of Fascism in Italy, Salvemini
They Thought they Were Free, Mayer (TripMonkey quoted from this book recently)
SOurces less historical and more in the “priamary source” category: any Gramsci, or Foucault; Survival at Auschwitz, Levi; and the bible of post modern thought: One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse
February 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am#30, here in Pennsylvania, a non-drivers license photo id card is $10. All you have to do is show proof-of-residency; W-2 form, SS card, etc. But, if that’s still a problem, then I have no qualms about giving out free photo id cards (with the proper documentation, of course). No excuses then for anybody to feel ‘disenfranchised’.
Voting is too important to not require some form of ID.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:39 amMeanwhile, back in Baghdad:
If you’ll recall, I predicted this tactic back when Bush announced his plan to put our Soldiers in isolated outposts. Those kids are sitting ducks now.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:40 amDale, way to be selective about your information. That democrat was a member of Democrats for Bush along with Zell Miller. All 3 people listed on that site are conservatives.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:41 amKucinich on Voting: He was one of a few congressmen who did not vote to certify the 2004 election.

“In Ohio there were efforts to frustrate the process,” he charged adding the secretary of state in Ohio made it hard for poorer people to be able to vote.
“I’m for paper ballots,” he said to applause and telling the crowd he has a bill in Congress to mandate paper ballots in federal elections.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:42 amKucinich on Health Care: Kucinich is passionate about providing a Medicare-type insurance plan for every citizen in the United States and funding it by removing the profit from the insurance companies. 

Reminding his audience that Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, yet get less for their money, he said he would end the 25 percent annual profit of the insurance companies.

“I am the only candidate talking about ending the profit,” said Kucinich who said the insurance companies have “an enormous influence over the political process.”
“To [the other candidates] it’s not about protecting us, it’s about protecting the insurance companies,” he said.

He called attention to H.R. 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, that he cosponsored with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., which will focus on quality, accessibility, and cost control. 

“Even [Sen. Hillary] Clinton’s plan still leaves 40 million without insurance because the parents aren’t covered,” he said.
“My candidacy will break the hold the insurance companies have on the country,” said Kucinich.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:44 amVoting is too important to not require some form of ID.
Comment by Dale
Photo ID costs much more here in Idaho. If you don’t have the proper documentation, which a lot of people don’t, they’re still shit out of luck. It costs more than the ID to request a copy of your birth certificate, and you have to be organized enough to be able to request it. Not everyone is as on the ball as most of us here. They should still be allowed to vote. It’s not these people who are stealing elections.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:45 amComment by Dale — February 20, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Last time I tried multiple links, the post never showed up. But if you want to see the Republican side of the equation, use these search terms, without quotes:
voter suppression republican
Here’s one site, detailing the efforts in 6 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:48 am#33 Dale
#25… glad you asked. First look here. From the executive summary:
Your source sucks. The American Center for Voting Rights is a sham organization started by a former DNC member turned Bush-Cheney operative. See http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/05/13/the_gops_attack_on_voting_rights.php
6: The number of days the American Center for Voting Rights, a new, “non-partisan,” “voting rights” organization, had been in existence before it was called to testify by Republican members of Congress before a House Administration Committee hearing on March 22. The American Center for Voting Rights was formed by a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney campaign and the notoriously anti-voting rights Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, who described the group as a non-partisan, voting rights advocacy group. He testified and submitted a report on Ohio election irregularities, which highlighted the Mary Poppins Conspiracy in this country. If you haven’t heard about it, the Mary Poppins Conspiracy consists of many, many ineligible voters—using the names Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive F. Turkey—fraudulently voting in elections.
Read the rest of it or do some research yourself on the ACVR. Nice try, though.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am#33 – Well, lets look into the organization taht you link to:
“Brian A. Lunde, Chairman - In 1999, impressed with then Texas Governor George Bush’s record and approach to governing, he assisted the Governor’s 2000 presidential campaign, playing an instrumental role in the highly successful Americans for Bush-Cheney effort to gather support from Democrats and Independents. Following the election, he served on the Presidential Transition Task Force.
In 2004, Lunde co-chaired Democrats for Bush with Senator Zell Miller which resulted in the recruitment of over 5,000 state and local Democratic elected officials, activists and rank-and-file party members who publicly endorsed the President’s re-election.”
“Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, Counsel – Prior to joining ACVR Legislative Fund, Hearne served as National Election Counsel to President Bush’s reelection campaign and in 2000 was Missouri counsel to the Bush campaign. Hearne was on the Bush campaign recount team in Broward county Florida in 2000.”
Oh, yeah. No partisanship there at all. Nope, nothing to see there. Move along, and swllow the kool-aide.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:49 amoff topic, hey juan, do you have a facebook profile? i went into facebok and looked at the TP group which looked like “young white professionals of americaâ€;
Comment by karlX
Watch it! I may be white, but I am neither young, nor professional. :)
February 20th, 2007 at 10:49 amas in most nations, national election days should be a “holiday”, or fall on a weekend; the two business parties (R and D) are happy having such a small percentage of the population voting
February 20th, 2007 at 10:50 amBut a purple finger was sufficient in Iraq.
In fact, I thought it was such a great idea that I suggested we do the same in the United States. Only, I suggested using the digit next to the index finger. We, too, could then proudly hold up our purple stained digits to show we voted!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am#35 Dale
here in Pennsylvania, a non-drivers license photo id card is $10.
And when you’re a retired person on fixed income, having to cut your medication dosages in half to be able to afford them, I’m sure it’s not that big a deal to cut them in thirds for a little while just so you can have the right to vote.
It’s a deterrent, plain and simple.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:52 amWe, too, could then proudly hold up our purple stained digits to show we voted!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Love it. Can’t wait!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am44 zooey
i’m a disheveled underpaid social worker, with two year old, browsing through facebook kinda depressed me….
February 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am#43, #44… do you really think that a Republican org is going to investigate Republican voter fraud? Or that a Democrat org is going to investigate Democrat voter fraud?
And what about my other two links, both established news sources (and you can’t get much more liberal than sfgate.com)
#47, in the same post, I said that if we had to make the photo id card free, then fine.
Why is requiring a photo id card such a deterrent?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:02 amZooey,
I quit the “Face” thing because of personal reasons. I was under the impression that it was connected with TP and was a place to exchange personal information and conversation outside the limits of a particular “thread.” I do not participate in the usual web “group group” things. I would be most happy to be your friend and exchange emails but I don’t care to have them flung all over for everybody to see. My contact information is to be found on my URI.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amAt least the one good peice of news in all this is that Arizona is allowed to continue displaying offensive material on thier Mudflaps. Thank God.
/sarcasm.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am#20 I am not particularly pacifast, although as a Green, that is the ideal I should adhere to. But I hope we can acheive positive change without violence. Otherwise, the progressive movement will lose the attainment of its goals in the process of acheiving them.
Comment by gogreen — February 20, 2007
you should do some reading on “active pacifism” (ie Gandhi, MLK). We’re not talking “pacifism” in terms of simply refusing to take part in violence (or condoning agression by others in order to avoid conflict, see western europe during hitler’s invasion of czek rep. and poland). Pcifist like 500,000 people marching, actively engaging those who condone the use of state violence.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:07 amtest
February 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am#40, from the Idaho Drivers License manual
ID Card (no age limit)
* Under age 18 $6.50
* Age 18 to 21 $6.50
* 4-year (age 21 and over) $7.50
* 8-year (age 21 and over) $15.00
Duplicate ID (same fee as original)
You can get a photo id card from your local Sheriffs office. $7.50 for 4 years, that works out to $1.875 per year. Just under two dollars. If someone is THAT desperate for $2.00 a year, then I’ll bet they could find an organization somewhere that would give them the money. Hell, I’ll give somebody two dollars a year.
As far as having to provide the documentation; if they’re that poor that they can’t afford a photo id, then they must have a SS card, or a welfare card. Hell, I got a copy of my sons’ birth certificate for $19, and *that* was from out of state, and included the mailing. Any complaints about ‘costs’ associated with voting are unfounded.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am#47, in the same post, I said that if we had to make the photo id card free, then fine.
Why is requiring a photo id card such a deterrent?
Comment by Dale
You said free with proper documentation — that’s a problem for some people.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am#52
February 20th, 2007 at 11:14 amClyde, now i get the URI thing (duh), good, okay, that’s easier than facebook
“It’s still going to be legal in Arizona for trucks to have splash guards with racist terms and silhouettes of naked women.â€
I’d rather see John McFlipflop banned from our airwaves than trucker’s mudflaps.
Who’s going to do the most damage?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am#55 – Sorry, I was thinking of the last driver’s license I bought.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am#51 – Thanks, Clyde. I thought it might be something like that. You’re a sweetie.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am#55 – Sorry Dale, we’re not going to convince each other on this one. The most that should be required is a power bill to show a home address, to make sure they’re voting in the right place. Maybe I see a different population of people than you. I try to understand that not everyone has the same level of function in society.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:19 amGreat Posts this morning….Thank you ..BnF,Zooey, Rachel and all.
Zooey, what’s Facebook.? Noticed it mentioned in some post’s…. Not around as much as in the past, busy with work to end this administration and bring Peace…..A bit heavy with troll traffic some times so just leave…..Rain and hail on the coast this morning….Flooding here after the past 2 day’s of down pour…Blessings to all….
February 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am#56, yes, free with the proper documentation… if someone wants to be able to help decide the course of the country (as much as any voter is able to help decide), then it’s not too much to ask for them to hold onto a birth certificate, or a social security card, or a photo id. But to just leave things wide open; what’s to stop me from voting in my hometown, then going to the next polling place (or out to Idaho) and voting again. By not having identification requirements in place, you’re making it easier for somebody (Dem/Rep/Ind/Green/etc) to commit voter fraud.
#59… guess you’re getting as old as I feel :-)
February 20th, 2007 at 11:20 amDale
if only you could put this much energy into diminishing the amount of “fraud”, tax breaks, and corporate wellfare that your Rep. is involved in.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am#64, which Rep is that? Do you mean the one from my district, or the one I voted for? (in case they’re different).
February 20th, 2007 at 11:30 amVoter cards could be issued easily upon registration. I’d be all for that. The problem lies in currently registered voters. It may be a fools dream to think there wouldn’t be some problems necessary to ensure a more secure voting process. But then, it seems a much smaller problem (although a problem nonetheless), than Republicans would have us believe.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:32 amComment by Zooey — February 20, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Zooey, isn’t there a requirement that all persons over the age of 18 are to have state issued photo ID? I know in every state I have lived in that was the law.
So, it is not a poll tax.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:32 amhow about the republican party to start with, as there buzz phrase is preventing “voter fraud”
February 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am#67, that’s true… didn’t think about that. My son lost his license for 3 months (speeding… the fool), and had to get a photo id while his license was gone.
So if everyone is supposed to have a photo id anyway…..
February 20th, 2007 at 11:35 amYa know, karlX, not *everything* is about Republicans vs. Democrats, or liberal vs. conservative.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amWith closing arguments underway in the trial of Scooter Libby, Perrspectives has updated its CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center. The PlameGate document repository features all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson.
For more, see:
February 20th, 2007 at 11:47 amThe CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.
Yesterday’s raid on a U.S. outpost in Baghdad are a “possible foreshadowing of attacks to come,†as insurgents target lightly fortified and “relatively isolated†outposts that are an “integral part†of the new U.S. strategy in Baghdad to immerse U.S. forces in Iraqi communities.
Adapt to win? Howza bout remember Dien Bihn Phu?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am70 that’s funny dale; sure i agree, they are both business parties beholding to corporate and military industries; what exactly were you refering to?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amQ – What does Bush have in common with the Blues Brothers?
A Both on a mission from God
February 20th, 2007 at 11:51 amDale,
When did voter fraud become an issue? In Minnesota, our former secretary of state, a Katherine Harris wannabe, tried making it an issue. When asked for an example of voter fraud that had occurred while she was in office, she couldn’t come up with one. Don’t you usually have a compelling reason before you go around changing laws? She decided she’d make Native American tribal IDs invalid as a form of identification. Thankfully, she got sued and lost.
It comes down to what the motivation is. You’re fine with ignoring the glaring election fraud issues we have while going after the negligible voter fraud issue. I smell bullshit.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am#70 Dale
Ya know, karlX, not *everything* is about Republicans vs. Democrats, or liberal vs. conservative.
With elections it appears to be. Republicans don’t want anything done about election fraud, paper trails, or malfunctioning and uncertified voting machines. Why would Republicans be okay with slipshod and easily rigged elections? How do they make it a partisan issue?
And why do they choose to ignore problems that affect thousands of votes while focusing on actions that affect relatively few votes.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pmF-14’s are cool and all – highway to the danger zone – but you should know that they’ve been retired and are therefore unlikely implements for any strikes on Iran.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pmDale, I live in a rural area where the nearest place to get a state photo ID is 45 minutes away. If the place is open during normal business hours and I work normal business hours I can not get there without taking time off work, which is not a problem for me personally because I am salaried and I can work a schedule with much more flexibility than an hourly employee can. Also from my little town lets say a person has no way to get to the bigger city to obtain their ID. There is no public transportation, and if the individual has lost their license or has never had one (yes there are people in this little town who have never left it…ever not even once) What to do about these now disenfranchised voters? I also live near a large Amish Community, they do not like their photo’s taken for religious reasons. What do we do about these now disenfranchised voters? What about my right wing nut job friends who want no contact wit the government and want them to have as little personal; information as possible, including no drivers license (yes I know some tin foil hat types who are afraid of having any personal information in the public arena), what do we do about these now disenfranchised voters? Your idea may seem sound for the vast majority of people, however there are many many exceptions that to make a voter ID law you would have thousands of pages of exceptions and the whole exercise would end up being an absolute mess.
Heck as to the voter fraud stuff, there is far more evidence and allegations of voter fraud on the part of the republicans than there was on the part of the dems in both 2004 and 2000. From the issue in Nevada where the people collection voter registration cards threw away all those they thought were democratic voters to the “exit poll controversey” and voter machine availability issues in Ohio. Perhaps you heard of ohio, irt is the place where the Republican Secretary of State controlled who got the voting machines and managed to place them lopsidedly in white districts and where there were instances of vote machines having votes on them before thhe elctiosn opened etc… Perhaps if there were ID’s required then there would not have been counties in Ohio where more votes were recorded for Bush than they had registered voters. Talk about giving 110%. Knute Rockne would be proud.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pmchimpeach, when did I *ever* try to ignore voter fraud on either side? I just made a post that I agree with stricter voter ID rules, was immediately slammed with ‘oh, it’s all republican’ and ‘the worst is republican’.
You keep making the point that Republicans are ignoring the ‘big’ issues and concentrating on the ‘little’ ones… can you please provide references ON BOTH SIDES to back up your assertions? Otherwise, you’re just acting like a kid in the schoolyard, crowing about how your willy is bigger than my willy.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pmDale, we really hate to break this to you, but nobody except you gives a shit about your willy.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWe are poised on the cusp of finding out what extent the damage is that Bush has done to the Supreme Court. Be prepared for the legal legitimization of the destruction of the constitution. We are about to see how evil Scalia really is. Be afraid, Be very afraid.
It’s 5 minutes to midnight and counting
February 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#78, I don’t think there should be ANY exceptions like you stated… if some right-wing nut job doesn’t want his photo taken by the gov’t, then damnit he has no business being INVOLVED in voting for the government.
Any time you start making exceptions like you’re stating, then you’re running the risk of, like you said, “thousands of pages of execptions”.
Sounds like a good argument for stricter voter id requirements.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#80, that’s it, I’m calling my g/f now and giving her hell! /sarcasm
February 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pmFrom ABC’s The Blotter:
Accused Terrorist Is Big GOP Donor
February 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) won’t say what it plans to do with thousands of dollars in campaign donations it received from an accused terror financier.
Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari gave $15,250 to the NRCC since 2002, according to FEC records published on the Web site opensecrets.org.
On Friday, Alishtari pled not guilty to funding terrorism and other crimes, including financial fraud.
The NRCC is the main political group dedicated to helping the Republican party win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Reached Monday morning for comment, an NRCC spokeswoman declined to discuss the matter on the record.
The indictment against Alishtari unsealed in Manhattan federal court Friday charges him with providing material support to terrorists by transferring $152,000 between banks to allegedly be used to purchase night-vision goggles and other equipment needed for a terrorist training camp.
[snip]
February 20th, 2007 at 12:28 pmA critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world’s scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss ‘may no longer be avoided‘ because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
If the ice sheets melt, would sea levels rise?
Any of you ever take a science class?
Try this at home. Fill a glass with water and add some ice. Lets call the ice “global ice sheets.” When the ice melts, does water level rise in the glass?
Try it.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#84, besides being off-topic… do you want the references to AQ and OBL rooting for the Democrats?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pmSen. John McCain (R-AZ) met privately Monday with religious broadcasters in Orlando, “then later said he isn’t catering to conservative Christians.†McCain explained, “What I have found out in my life, is that every time I have done something for political reasons and not the right reasons, I have paid a very heavy price for it — a big price.â€
That explains why he flip-flops after each poll.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:36 pmIf the ice sheets melt, would sea levels rise?
Try this at home. Fill a glass with water and add some ice. Lets call the ice “global ice sheets.†When the ice melts, does water level rise in the glass?
Try it.
Comment by The Learning Curve
Quite possibly the most ignorant post of the week.
Ice also exists in glaciers, stupid. They are on land, and will add to the rising levels — but hold tight to your grade-school hypothesis, meathead.
Ice in ice cubes dosen’t contain methane, but ice in the “sheets” does. The methane will add to global warming, fool.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm#84, besides being off-topic… do you want the references to AQ and OBL rooting for the Democrats?
Comment by Dale —
Someone doesn’t read too well. This thread is for things TP missed. Sucks, huh?
But I’d rather hear your excuse for the RNCC’s taking the money. But I predict you won’t touch that one, eh?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pmTry this at home. Fill a glass with water and add some ice. Lets call the ice “global ice sheets.†When the ice melts, does water level rise in the glass?
Try it.
Comment by The Learning Curve
I haven’t tried it Einstein, but I would gather the water level in the glass would actually fall a bit, due the ice melting and contracting as it melts.
Too bad your comparison is dumb, because the vast majority of the Earth’s ice sheets are not floating in the oceans. Antarctica holds 2/3rds of the fresh water supply and its on land. Since the majority of the ice sheets are not currently displacing water in the oceans, like your ice in the glass does, the melted water from the ice sheets would displace the oceans, causing them to rise.
Were you just tesing if anyone is reading your post?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pmhttp://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12165
February 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pmdo you want the references to AQ and OBL rooting for the Democrats?
Comment by Dale —
This is money the RNCC took from an accused supporter of terrorists – what is it with republicans and terrorists? It’s not like they don’t vet where large contributions come from.
And GOP synchophants like Dale would have posted the entire article in bold, if it had been traced to the democrats. So squeal away, dude.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pmFT – Nice verbal whack upside LC’s pointy little head.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pmDespite the Bush administration’s refrain that it is not considering military action against Iran, the BBC reports, “US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure.â€
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12162
February 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pmFT – Nice verbal whack upside LC’s pointy little head.
Comment by RUCerious
Thanks!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:10 pmOkay, but only because Barfly insisted.
McKinney campaign donors named in 9.11 suit
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 8/17/02 | By BOB DART and STEPHEN KRUPIN
Posted on 08/17/2002 4:27:50 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
WASHINGTON — Several contributors to Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign are among the alleged “enablers of terrorism” named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed this week by families of some Sept. 11 victims.
The suit seeks damages from the “financial sponsors of terror” who “hide behind the facade of legitimacy.” Among these alleged terrorist financiers are several individual supporters of McKinney. Among the corporate defendants is a Gainesville poultry firm.
The federal suit was filed Thursday by more than 600 relatives of people who died in the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. The amount sought was amended to $1 trillion from an earlier $100 trillion.
“The financial resources and support network of these defendants — charities, banks and individual financiers — are what allowed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to occur,” the lawsuit charges.
Among the defendants are:
D Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., a Gainesville firm that the lawsuit claims has links to Saudi supporters of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network.
D Abdurahman Alamoudi, who contributed $2,000 to McKinney’s campaign. The lawsuit says Alamoudi has “openly stated his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated terrorist organizations.” Alamoudi is secretary of the Success Foundation, which the lawsuit charges is part of the International Islamic Relief Organization, which is “al- Qaida’s charity of choice to funnel money and weapons.”
D Mohamed S. Omeish, who contributed $500 to McKinney’s campaign. The suit says Omeish is president of the U.S. branch of the Islamic Relief Organization.
D Yaqub Mirza, president of Mar-Jac Investments, who also gave $500 to McKinney’s campaign. He is secretary-treasurer of the Muslim World League, an organization named as a defendant in the lawsuit. “The MWL has numerous connections with al-Qaida operatives,” the lawsuit alleges.
D Jamal Barzinji, a Mar-Jac Investments manager, who gave $500 to McKinney’s campaign. Barzinji is president of SAAR Foundation, another organization named as a defendant in the lawsuit. “The SAAR Network financially supports terrorism and its main contributors, the al-Rajhi Family, has a long history of same,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit said the “co-conspirators, aiders and abettors of the al-Rajhi family” include Mar-Jac Poultry Inc. The al-Rajhi family was included among the Saudi Arabian financiers of bin Laden.
D Ahmad Totonji, who contributed $1,000 to McKinney’s campaign. The lawsuit lists him among the “co-conspirators, aiders and abettors of the SAAR Network.”
The lawsuit defendants who contributed to McKinney’s campaign could not be reached Friday and did not respond to telephone messages.
Telephone calls on Friday to the McKinney campaign were not returned. The congresswoman faces former DeKalb County State Court Judge Denise Majette in the 4th District Democratic primary Tuesday.
In a televised debate earlier this month, McKinney responded to questions about her donors.
“All of our contributions are legal,” she said. “My opponent, on the other hand, has an awful lot of Republican money going into her coffers.”
McKinney has long enjoyed support from within the nation’s Islamic community.
In an earlier interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, McKinney had said, “My relationships with the Arab-American and American Muslim communities are based on the belief that they, like Americans of all ethnic and religious backgrounds, are full members of the American family.”
But McKinney campaign coordinator Wendell Muhamad had played down FBI investigations of some of these same donors. He had said that the agency historically has hounded minorities and now is targeting Muslims and people with Arab-sounding names.
About one-fourth of the individuals who have contributed to McKinney’s campaigns over the past five years have names that appear to be Arab-American or Muslim, according to an informal study of Federal Election Commission records by the Journal- Constitution.
Their contributions total $142,950, one-third of the money McKinney collected from individuals over the last five years, the AJC review indicated.
Arab-American leaders call McKinney a longtime supporter.
Staff writers Melanie Eversley and Bill Torpy of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contributed to this article.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#84 that is not the first time a Republican financer has been found to be working for the wrong side. Way back in the Clinton era there was the whole flap about Clinton selling us out to China (never mind that China got it’s greatest technological gifts during the Bush era..hint it was a plane that landed in China when they have strict orders on which countries they can and can not crash land in, those guys got medals) Anyway back in 200, I think, or maybe June 2003, a young lady was arrested for being a double agent. She worked for the FBI and apparently for the Chinese intelligence (spy) service. After the arrest things got interesting. She was apparently a major fundraiser for the Bush campaign in 200 and for Republicans in general. On top of that she was apparently the source of the Clinton is selling out the US to China story. Hmmm who was she working for when she made those claims Was it the FBI and was she working in her official capacity? Was she working for China and wanted to expose something, which did not exist by the way, or was she working as a republican operative?
Dale the only people who make the claims about democrats and OBL/Al Queda are republicans/right wingers and crazy conservative leaders of Australia..
February 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pmOh, and also realize that the source for #96 is the Atlanta Journal Constitution… a decidedly liberal newspaper. (just in case anyone whines about my Fox News, Drudge, etc as sources).
February 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pmDale wants us to know that the guy talking about Dem voter fraud worked for the Dems. He says “read the executive summary!” I did, Dale, and found this:
“In 2004, Lunde co-chaired Democrats for Bush with Senator Zell Miller which resulted in the recruitment of over 5,000 state and local Democratic elected officials, activists and rank-and-file party members who publicly endorsed the President’s re-election.”
Right, Dale. This guy’s totally non-biased. Dale, just give up. As a propagandist, you’re just not good enough for a fact-based discussion.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pmDale are they also going after the Saudis for financing the Hijackers?
February 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#97, so which is AJC Mark, republicans/right wingers, or crazy conservative leaders of Australia.
You really oughta be more careful stating ‘absolutes’.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:43 pmrepublican party’s congressional committee with a single congressperson?
Tha’s like comparing a hangnail with a tumor.
Here’s another off topic tid bit for you to chew on, dude.
From Raw Story:
Shuster: ‘Prosecutors still looking for ways to pursue Cheney’ John Byrne and David Edwards
Published: Tuesday February 20, 2007
According to MSNBC’s David Shuster, legal sources say that if I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction, prosecutors may try to get him to turn over evidence against the Vice President.
“Legal sources confirm to MSNBC tonight that if Libby is convicted, prosecutors are expected to attempt to revisit Libby’s vague testimony about Vice President Cheney,” Shuster said. “The idea is that prosecutors would seek to flip Libby to get at suspicions about the Vice President.”
“Prosecutors are still seeking to pursue Cheney in the overall investigation,” he added.
The X factor in the case is whether if Libby is convicted he will be pardoned by President Bush — in which case all bets are off.
Closing arguments for Libby’s trial begin today. The following video contains a clip of Shuster’s Monday night report on MSNBC Countdown.
And if Bush pardons him, it’s the first step to impeachment. The Bush pardon of Oliver North was not attacked because he could make at the time a plausible claim that he was “out of the loop,” on the illegal aspects of Iran/Contra. As he and Reagan were cobbled together for political conveinience, most people, including Lawrence Walsh, didn’t thing he was involved — not so with Commander Codpiece; he and Cheney were thick as thieves, so Bush will be in the dock shortly after he pardons Libby. Libby tried to be the brave soldier for Cheney, now we’ll see if Cheney is willing to take the heat for Bush.
And Clinton wasn’t impeached for Whitewater, so we might need another special prosecutor, meaning re-upping legislation to empower special prosecutors, now that we have the legislative power.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pmTry this at home. Fill a glass with water and add some ice. Lets call the ice “global ice sheets.†When the ice melts, does water level rise in the glass?
Try it.
Comment by The Learning Curve
This is a simplistic uneducated comment. It might work if, all the melting ice masses were floating. It might work if all the melting ice masses were similar in density as sea water. Sea water is highly salinated and the ice masses have more fresh water. When they melt the density of the overall mix changes creating higher water levels. Also there is the FACT that some of the major ice sheets are on land. Greenland, the artic also has a lot of ice sitting on islands etc.. and of course the Antarctic. When that ice melts two major things will happen…the melting waters will flow down stream to the ocean and once the weight of the ice is removed from the land mass there will be a relative rise in the land thus displacing more water. Of course if you don’t believe in science as republicans tend not to, then you would not believe in plate tectonics and the notion that land masses are not static, so this would not make sense to you.
Dale, while you are at it, you got anything on the Bush family and their ties to Saudi Arabia/ the Bin laden Family, campaign cash etc… I hear there might be a connection there. Also who are the families suing McKinney, are allegations evidence of proof to you? If so please do look up those Bush Saudi ties. This is so cool, perhaps some 911 families can sue the Bush family too, their pockets are much deeper than McKinney. Or is this simply a harassment/change the topic away from the Republican party’s embarrassing behavior lawsuit? I also though that republicans hated the court system being tied up with these types of suits? Or is that only when their friends are the targets?
February 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDale, the lady was Katrina Leonge, big-time fundraiser for republicans. She was carrying on an affair with the FBI agent in charge of investigating possible campaign funding crimes in the Clinton administration with respect to CHINESE money. She was secretly working for the Chinese government. Maybe our friend Dale can explain why the mainstream media wasn’t interested in this case. I would think a “liberal media” would have wanted to make this a big deal.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pmSo, when the wingnutz like Dale squeal about “could someone tell us what this trial is all about? This is what it’s all about — and you wingers took Fitz at his word, for saying the case wasn’t about anything but perjury. He knew all along where this was going, but didn’t want to telegraph his moves in advance, to give the wingnuttosphere a chance to swiftboat him for being overly partisan. He played out the bait, and you chumps bit down hard. How’s it taste now?
February 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pmaw, barfly, nothing to say about #96? Lessee, you can’t moan that I’m using ‘right-wing’ sources, you can’t complain that I was ‘cherry-picking’, I just did want you asked.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pmGosh, the “Learning Curve” has envisioned a simple experiment which shows that 95% of the world’s scientists are wrong about the effects of global warming! Stop the presses!!….. um, sorry, but the experiment is irrelevant. The experiment should be as follows:
Place a bowl of water in the kitchen sink. Put a block of ice on the draining board so that it when the block melts, it drains into the bowl. When the ice melts, it overflows the bowl. Think of the bowl as our sea level and the chunk of ice as sitting on top of Greenland. Try it, “learning curve.” See what happens.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pmDale: “Lessee, you can’t moan that I’m using ‘right-wing’ sources”
I think I just showed that one of your sources you call a “democrat” worked for Bush’s reelection and is friends with Zell Miller. Try to keep up, Dale.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pmaw, barfly, nothing to say about #96? Lessee, you can’t moan that I’m using ‘right-wing’ sources, you can’t complain that I was ‘cherry-picking’, I just did want you asked.
Comment by Dale
republican party’s congressional committee with a single congressperson?
That’s like comparing a hangnail with a tumor.
This was for you, dude.
This is the party’s congressional committee, not a single congresswoman. It points to endemic corruption in the whole reuplican political apparatus, and you’re straining to find a single congresswoman to smear. That you can’t see the difference, speaks volumes about your ability to see things in a non-partisan fashion.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI just did want you asked.
Yeah, the bold part. But your example and mine are of degrees; you point to one woman, I can point to the republican’s whole rotten political structure.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHere’s how you know that Dale’s “source” for this info on Demcratic voter fraud is bogus. When you go there, all you see is the word “democrat” being used as an adjective. It’s not an adjective, Dale. It’s a noun. The proper adjective is “democratic,” as in “democratic agenda” or “democratic congressperson.” Using “democrat” as an adjective is just another spin word by Frank Lutz.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pmDavid Bonoir, Democrat Congressman from Michigan, House Minority Whip, taking money from many of the same people as McKinney in the mid and late nineties.
Ron Kirk, Democrat nominee for US Senator from Texas (open seat), also former mayor of Dallas.
Hillary, ALSO took money from some of the same people as McKinney.
Ted Kennedy. Ditto.
Guess what? Kucinich ALSO took money from some of the same people as McKinney.
Rahall, from WV. Moran from Virginia
They’re all a matter of public record, get your head out of the sand and look ‘em up.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pmDale the site you are using is run by this guy:
“In 2004, Lunde co-chaired Democrats for Bush with Senator Zell Miller which resulted in the recruitment of over 5,000 state and local Democratic elected officials, activists and rank-and-file party members who publicly endorsed the President’s re-election.â€
I’ve seen you dismiss information as being produced by “left-wing media.” I’ve seen you post that Moveon.org is not credible because they are “Bush-haters.” Now you want us to believe what Zell Miller and his friends say about dems running elections???!!! Get serious.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pmAh, Blue, you’re confusing me w/someone else. I haven’t dismiss information as being produced by “left-wing media. And I certainly haven’t post that Moveon.org is not credible because they are “Bush-haters.â€
You’re apparently confusing me w/someone else; unless you can actually point to a post that I made re: moveon.org??? No, didn’t think so.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pmDale, I assume your little group of Dems who support Bush will be issuing legal complaints if they have something other than propaganda. Take, for example, CREW. They acquire the evidence and file complaints. If your guys have a case, I assume they’ll make it. Otherwise, it’s just propaganda. Here’s how the real deal does it:
“Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the campaign committees and treasurers for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). The complaints ask the FEC to investigate all three for failing to properly report contributors to their campaigns. The complaint against Sen. Coburn addresses violations committed during the 2004 election cycle, while the complaints against Rep. Diaz-Balart and Rep. Musgrave cover the 2006 election cycle.”
February 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmDale, I really do appreciate your concern, please do an expose on the Bush/Saudi ties. I’ve heard rumors and allegations so they must be as true as the ALLEGATIONS in the story you present. Afterall you are presenting those ALLEGATIONS as fact. Of course we know of No republicans who have done anything wrong. No one took money from enron, no one took money indirectly from the Chinese government, no one took money from the Saudi’s who are the 911 perpetrators. None of the republicans has ever taken money from anyone accused of doing anything wrong, because they are as pure as thwe driven snow. Also with these ALLEGATIONS you are making, show the proof that the ALLEGATION you are making (That democrats knowingly supported terrorism when they took these donations…that is exactly what you are implying through your ALLEGATIONS) is factual.
allegation
Main Entry:
February 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pmal·le·ga·tion
Pronunciation:
\ËŒa-li-ˈgÄ-shÉ™n\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1: the act of alleging2: a positive assertion; specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove3: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable
The largest share of funding for Bush’s first company came from Osama bin Laden’s uncle. That’s not an allegation. It’s a fact.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDale’s really making the most of the “Twilight of Conservative Republican’t Ideology in America”….can’t blame him – it’s going to be a long, long, long time before the radical righties get out from under the rocks of obscurity and irrelevance in this country.
Dale – enjoy it while there’s still a little sliver of daylight – that ol sun sinks pretty fast….
February 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pmStill awaiting Dale’s reasoning for the republican committee to have taken those funds; did they vet the “Mixon” guy’s contributions, and didn’t particularly care where the money came from, or did they not investigate before taking the money. They had to have known the scrutiny their actions were under, but thought their party’s control of all branches of government meant they’d be able to quash any investigation – until they lost.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pmKarlX.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:46 pmDont have too much time.
I have a class to teach right now. Thanks for your suggestions.
Dale, again, I assume your right-wing muckrakers are going to file legal complaints against any of these democrats they think broke rules. CREW does that. They file complaints. They are a legitimate watch-dog group. When will your phony group file their complaints? Why don’t you go ask them? See what you find out. My guess is that they are pure b.s.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:46 pmLarry from C and gogreen.
Im a pacisfist…but my patience is fading. :/
February 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pmBarfly, when did I ever try to defend the RNCC? Please tell me?
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out when I said anything about moveon.org. Oh, I forgot, being a liberal means never having to apologize for generalizing.
Because I (gasp) said something bad about Democrats, then I’m automagically defending all Republicans everywhere, about everything.
Is that your idea of logic Barfly?
February 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSome more red meat for #3 and #8:
Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
Kucinich, Hillary, et. al. oughta love this.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pmDale, would you concur that money is at the root of the corruption in politics, regardless of party?
February 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWould you advocate a system like Britain, with a six week, publicly funded campaign cycle?
Would you also concede that the First Amendment free speech clause should not pertain to monetary donations to political candidacies?
Just askin…
#125, money, yes, but also power. Often the two go hand-in-hand.
Re: a ‘publicly funded campaign cycle’; I don’t know enough about there system to really comment. I do know, however, that our current system is pretty screwed up
Re: 1st Ammendment clause… if you mean that there are no limits on donations, then no… I don’t agree with that. But I also think that McCain -Feingold was a mistake and an abridgement of the 1st.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pmZooey, isn’t there a requirement that all persons over the age of 18 are to have state issued photo ID? I know in every state I have lived in that was the law.
So, it is not a poll tax.
Comment by hacker bob
Not required in Idaho, Robert. Poll tax. :)
February 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm#126 –
February 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm1. Agreed then.
2. Do some research. It works for the Brits, the media don’t get rich off corporate donations and payola.
3. Why should free speech be tied to monetary donations. I’ve never quite understood that.
Robert,
If you’re still around, how did you like “An Inconvenient Truth?”
I’m not asking you how you liked Al Gore! I don’t want to have to come all the way over there to smack you. :)
I’m asking you about the subject matter.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm#126
1. Ack! I agreed with a liberal! Quick, someone spray me, I might have cooties! :-)
February 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm2. Yeah, in my spare time. But I have thought about something along this lines in the past. Would it work? Dunno, but probably worth at least talking about.
3. Directly giving money to a candidate… yeah, there should be limits. But this crap about not being able to talk about a candidate xx days before an election…. just ridiculous.
Mistress Z ~
February 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI fear Robert’s head exploded at the end of said viewing.
Zooey, how’s it going.?…Blessings
February 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pmMistress Z ~
I fear Robert’s head exploded at the end of said viewing.
Comment by RUCerious
Well then, I won’t have to smack him. :)
February 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pmZooey, how’s it going.?…Blessings
Comment by Sharon
Going well, Sharon. I heard you’re having tests — I sent you an email.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm#79 Dale
chimpeach, when did I *ever* try to ignore voter fraud on either side? I just made a post that I agree with stricter voter ID rules, was immediately slammed with ‘oh, it’s all republican’ and ‘the worst is republican’.
Your issue is voter fraud. The Republicans don’t want to deal with election fraud. They’re two different things.
You keep making the point that Republicans are ignoring the ‘big’ issues and concentrating on the ‘little’ ones… can you please provide references ON BOTH SIDES to back up your assertions? Otherwise, you’re just acting like a kid in the schoolyard, crowing about how your willy is bigger than my willy.
The Republicans were in power while it was going on and scoffed at every attempt to get something done about it. What do you want? Do you want a quote from Tom DeLay or some other Republican who was in the House at the time? Do I have to round up all the bills and amendments intended to deal with shoddy elections that didn’t make it out of committee because the Republicans voted them down? It’s too bad you haven’t been paying attention all this time, but election fraud is most definitely a problem that Republicans don’t want to deal with. And voter fraud is most definitely a problem that they do want to deal with. The former is thousands of times more serious than the latter.
I’ll throw you a bone. Here’s an example of Republicans trying to screw around with voter registration in Florida. It’s a law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and enacted last year and was then overturned just before the election:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/28/State/Judge_rejects__chilli.shtml
Under the law, which went into effect on Jan. 1, the state would have imposed a mandatory fine of $250 for every voter registration form submitted more than 10 days after the form was collected from a prospective voter, $500 for each registration form submitted after the passing of a registration deadline, and $5,000 for each registration form not submitted at all.
The circumstances didn’t matter — the groups could be fined if a fire or hurricane destroyed the applications. And if the organization couldn’t pay, the volunteer who collected the application could be on the hook.
They exempted political parties from the law. The effect was to scare organizations like the League of Women voters from doing registrations. They couldn’t afford the fines and legal bills if one of their workers accidentally filed too late. “$5000 for each registration form not submitted at all”!!!
I could come up with hundreds of examples for you, but this isn’t the forum for it. I’d have to write a page-long post for every example and explain the context to you.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pmDale; see now that’s why labels fail us.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI am pretty much a “liberal” in some regards, but in others, I see politics and society in a variety of ways.
Labels suck.
Comment by Zooey — February 20, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Honestly, I have not watched it yet. Mrs. and I have been watching alot of movies at home lately and took last night off. I will watch it soon.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pmBushland Uber Allies is itching to attack Iran to plunge the whole of the Middle East into a conflagration possibly Armageddon…
February 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pmScalia is a poisonous, venomous insect who must be stepped on and crushed underfoot for the sake of Truth, Justice and The American Way
I guess CHIMPya is going to have to fire a lot of white house workers like he promised when the leak was uncovered–I’m not holding my breath!
You go, girls!!!! Show the workers your stuff!!!!!
Mr. pasty-faced flip-flopping McPAIN–HYPOCRITE WITHOUT EQUAL!
This is why repugnant-repubs like strict voter I.D. rules–CREEPS!!!!!
That four-eyed repugnant-repub Grassley–he needs a GOOD PUNCH IN THE FACE TO BREAK HIS GLASSES and MAKE HIM SEE REASON!!!!
YEP!–GLOBAL WARMING IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER–Inhofe ALSO NEEDS A GOOD PUNCH IN HIS FACE LIKE Grassley!!!!!
Attacks to come–to be expected by everyone except CHIMPya and Co.
What do you expect from a state that elected John McPAIN and Jon Kyl, TWO OF THE WORSE repugnant-repubs in the senate?
#102 wrote: “The Bush pardon of Oliver North was not attacked because he could make at the time a plausible claim that he was “out of the loop,†on the illegal aspects of Iran/Contra.”
And yet another in a long series of embarassing mistakes by Barfly…Oliver North was never pardoned by any American president, including President George H.W. Bush or President George W. Bush.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:29 pmHonestly, I have not watched it yet. Mrs. and I have been watching alot of movies at home lately and took last night off. I will watch it soon.
Comment by hacker bob
Ugh!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:52 pm102 wrote: “The Bush pardon of Oliver North was not attacked because he could make at the time a plausible claim that he was “out of the loop,†on the illegal aspects of Iran/Contra.â€
And yet another in a long series of embarassing mistakes by Barfly…Oliver North was never pardoned by any American president, including President George H.W. Bush or President George W. Bush.
My, my. Coming from you that’s laughable. North’s conviction was thrown out, it’s true, but you can’t assail the larger point about Bush not being out of the loop; so perhaps I should have said Cap Weinburger, or Elliot Abrahms. What about the larger point, Exley? Or did you miss that strairning at my slight mistake about North?
February 21st, 2007 at 1:12 amAh, Blue, you’re confusing me w/someone else. I haven’t dismiss information as being produced by “left-wing media. And I certainly haven’t post that Moveon.org is not credible because they are “Bush-haters.â€
You’re apparently confusing me w/someone else; unless you can actually point to a post that I made re: moveon.org??? No, didn’t think so.
Comment by Dale
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out when I said anything about moveon.org. Oh, I forgot, being a liberal means never having to apologize for generalizing.
Because I (gasp) said something bad about Democrats, then I’m automagically defending all Republicans everywhere, about everything.
Is that your idea of logic Barfly?
Comment by Dale
Dale, you should try to keep out of comments threads if you can’t remember who you’re talking to. I don’t know what you’re talking about, little one; I’ve never mentioned MoveOn, so slow down, kid, or you’ll trip and hurt yourself.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:22 amAnd yet another in a long series of embarassing mistakes by Barfly…
I’m still laughing over your weak contention that congress ever saw Saddam’s complete weapons declaration (even the redacted parts). Care to post a link? You really aren’t very good at debunking — you should give it up. And I gave you the North reference, but I’m betting you won’t touch the larger question I raised about Bush, and impeachment. I guess it’s now 1-9, for you. Congratulations.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:28 amFor the record, it has now been five days since Barfly initially made his unsubstantiated claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page weapons dossier and five days since Dale asked for any evidence to back up claim regarding Congress.
Similarly it has been several days since I showed Barfly lied when he made his claim that the entire U.N. saw only a redacted version of the Iraq weapons dossier (I also showed that Barfly lied (or simply mixed up his chronology) when he falsely implied that Iraq released its weapons dossier before Congress voted on the AUMF, when, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Iraq released the dossier.
And Barfly continues to hide.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:00 amFor the record, it has now been five days since Barfly initially made his unsubstantiated claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page weapons dossier and five days since Dale asked for any evidence to back up claim regarding Congress.
And since Exley cannot debunk it, this is the closest he can come. Sorry Ex, old man; it doesn’t quite do it. How you can debunk it, is to show proof that they did see the complete document, but you can’t seem to find your proof . . .
For the record you didn’t debunk it then, and you still haven’t presented any evidence to substantiate your claim.
Similarly it has been several days since I showed Barfly lied when he made his claim that the entire U.N. saw only a redacted version of the Iraq weapons dossier (I also showed that Barfly lied (or simply mixed up his chronology) when, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Iraq released the dossier.
And Barfly continues to hide.
Comment by Exley —
I guess you’re to dim to see how this debunks your previous assertion. Look real hard, and I’m sure you’ll evetually get it.
Ha, Ha, ha… You never fail to shoot yourself in the foot.
when he falsely implied that Iraq released its weapons dossier before Congress voted on the AUMF,
Changing the wording is the only way you can prevail; we both know that’s not what I said, but you have a long history of this weak tactic –it’s what got you your current 1-9 win loss record against me.
Is this truly the best you can do?
February 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pmwhen, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Iraq released the dossier.
That’s a neat trick, Exley. Way to debunk yourself.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pmAnd so Barfly continues to hide, refusing (or, more likely, unable) to prove his unsubstantiated allegation that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page Iraq weapons dossier….Of course, if you have any evidence to the contrary, Barfly, we’d all love to see it.
Since I already proved he lied when he falsely claimed that no one at the U.N. saw the full dossier (when, in fact, the five permanent members of the Security Council each received copies of the full, 12,000 page document), we can all assume he lied when he made his claim about Congress.
(Not to mention that Barfly’s chronology was incorrect when he falsely claimed that Iraq released its 12,000 page dossier before Congress voted on the AUMF, when, in fact, Congress voted to approve the AUMF in Oct. 2002, two months BEFORE Iraq released the dossier in December 2002).
February 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pmHeh! Poor Barfly…He doesn’t seem grasp that when he makes a claim, the burden of proof is upon him to substantiate it.
For example, when I claimed that Juan Cole had falsely claimed that 9/11 took place before the Jenin operation, I provided the link that proved it.
When I argued that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council received copies of the full 12,000 page dossier, I provided several links from news publications proving my case (and again correcting Barfly)
Yet, Barfly has yet to provide one single link or article that substantiates his claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page dossier…Obviously he has no proof to back up his claim. He has been caught in a lie again.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pmCorrection: “For example, when I claimed that Juan Cole had falsely claimed that 9/11 took place AFTER the Jenin operation, I provided the link that proved it.”
February 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pmNot to mention that Barfly’s chronology was incorrect when he falsely claimed that Iraq released its 12,000 page dossier before Congress voted on the AUMF, when, in fact, Congress voted to approve the AUMF in Oct. 2002, two months BEFORE Iraq released the dossier in December 2002).
I didn’t say that, so how about using my statements, not your self-serving approximations?
It’s pretty transparent, and not very convincing.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 amwhen, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Iraq released the dossier.Exley
And what the hell were you babbling about with this gibberish?
You still haven’t produced any solid link, or source that debunks my assertion. I can’t help but laugh every time you call someone a liar.
Yet, Barfly has yet to provide one single link or article that substantiates his claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page dossier…Obviously he has no proof to back up his claim. He has been caught in a lie again.
Comment by Exley
Who said absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence? Until you can post a conclusive authority, like a quote from a member of congress, you are just flapping your gums.
I’m researching this, and if you’re right, I’ll admit it. But if you’re conclusively proven wrong, will you do the same?
It’ll be a first, either way.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 amLest we forget how badly you were whacked over your claims about Saddam, I feel confident the same will happen on this issue.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 amNot to mention that Barfly’s chronology was incorrect when he falsely claimed that Iraq released its 12,000 page dossier before Congress voted on the AUMF, when, in fact, Congress voted to approve the AUMF in Oct. 2002, two months BEFORE Iraq released the dossier in December 2002).
Comment by Exley —
Actually that’s you, falsely claiming that I said that. But don’t let reality intrude on your little strawman parade.
Heh! Poor Barfly…He doesn’t seem grasp that when he makes a claim, the burden of proof is upon him to substantiate it.
And the burden of proof is now on you to prove that I said what you have just claimed I said.
Heh! Poor little Exley . . .
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 amAnd I couldn’t help but notice how you jumped so hard at that North miscue, but let the larger point go whizzing by. You possess a truly shoddy intellect.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 amBarfly wrote:
“I’m researching this, and if you’re right, I’ll admit it. But if you’re conclusively proven wrong, will you do the same?”
I am glad you are researching it. As I said, if one makes an assertion, the burden of proof is on that person.
I am always willing to admit my mistakes. But, you should note that I have not once said that you are wrong when you claim that Congress did not have access to the full dossier. What I have been saying is that there is no proof to back up your assertion and thus your claim is, to this point, unsubstantiated. If you come up with such proof, I will gladly acknowledge that you are correct.
On that same note, will you concede you were partially mistaken when you wrote that “the UN” received only a redacted version of the dossier, when, in fact, the five permanent members of the Security Council did indeed receive the full, non-redacted dossier.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 am#151 Barfly,
“when, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Iraq released the dossier.”Exley
And what the hell were you babbling about with this gibberish?
You are correct. That is indeed gibberish. That is, of course, not what I meant to type.
Here is my original posting on the topic and what I meant to re-type:
Congress voted on the authorization to use military force in Iraq in October, 2002.
Saddam’s weapons declaration was not issued until early December 2002.
So, Barfly’s attempt to argue that Congress voted to approve the use of force only after reading a redacted version of the declaration is incorrect.
Congress voted to authorize force almost two months before the declaration was ever turned over by Iraq.
Comment by Exley — February 16, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Clearly, in my haste, I typed inaccurately when I was re-stating these facts for the umpteenth time. Thank you for pointing out my error. Clearly, I meant to type:
“when, in fact, Iraq did not release its dossier until two months after Congress had voted to approve the AUMF.â€
My apologies for my typing error and any confusion it may have caused.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 amNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:55 pmstudent credit card application
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pmInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:44 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:18 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:03 pmWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 10:36 amStudent Accounts Online Credit Card
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:04 amNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 amfast weight loss
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok. do you know what is the first? i`ve the new album at my blog
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:52 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:21 pmBankruptcy Laws Faq Florida
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 27th, 2008 at 5:50 amAsian Asian Schoolgirl Asian Porn Stars
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
February 28th, 2009 at 7:37 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
March 31st, 2009 at 10:52 pmThe truth about Arbonne Skin Care Products…
Arbonne International is one of the best companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care product line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne skin care products are developed in Switzerland….
April 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pm