ThinkFast: October 19, 2007
ThinkFast: October 19, 2007
A vote on Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey “could be delayed until he provides written answers to questions raised Thursday” by Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT). In yesterday’s hearings, Mukasey refused to denounce torture and expressed support for expanded executive authority.
The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday voted 13-2 to approve a bill tightening rules on government wiretapping. The legislation would also contains a “highly controversial” grant of legal immunity for telecoms, a provision demanded by the White House.
A new report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction states that U.S. attempts at political reconciliation, economic growth, and building an effective police force in Iraq “have failed to show significant progress in nearly every one of the nation’s provincial regions and the capital.”
House aide Greg Lankler, who has been subpoenaed in the corruption investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), has promised to “fight” the order. Prosecutors in Los Angeles are investigating Lewis’s steering of valuable earmarks for lobbyist Bill Lowery’s clients.
“The majority of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder that are used to treat hundreds of thousands of veterans lack rigorous scientific evidence that they are effective,” according to a report issued yesterday by the National Academies.
In “one of the most concrete signs of the effect of a warming climate on government operations, the Coast Guard is planning its first operating base there as a way of dealing with the cruise ships and the tankers that are already beginning to ply Arctic waters.”
136: Number of people who were killed by a suicide bomber in Karachi, Pakistan, yesterday. Thousands turned out for the return of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
Oil prices have soared to “another record high,” hitting $90.07.
And finally: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) won second place in the annual D.C.’s Funniest Celebrity contest, beating out Wonkette founder Ana Marie Cox and Grover Norquist. Specter joked that Bob Dole once told him, “Arlen, you know [Viagra] costs $10 a pill?” “Bob, how in the hell would I know about that?,” Specter replied. “And then Elizabeth said to him in anger…’Bob, you can afford $40 a year!’” Watch it here.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When Sheep Sleep
As the self-proclaimed “American patriots†burnish their flag lapel pins and jump up and down about obstructions to authoritarian invasions of our right to privacy and an overzealous government, it has become painfully obvious, even as it is completely dumbfounding, that many, many Americans understand or care very little about the founding principles of the United States that are enshrined in the US Constitution. That the Constitution could be under sustained attack from the totalitarian bush administration for so long with barely a whimper of outcry and mostly slavish support for the Constitution’s shredding, is truly eye opening for those of us who took for granted that most Americans understood that THE most fundamental objective of the Constitution was to protect the people against tyranny. Yet today, in direct confrontation and insult to that most basic of objectives of our Constitution, republicans are unanimous, democrats and independents significantly supportive, and our corporate media hands a megaphone to the Constitution shredders while muzzling nearly all objections to the bush administration’s assault on the Constitution.
In the latest assault on the Constitution, the rule of law is proposed to again be subverted, this time by retroactive and forward immunity from prosecution of the bush administration’s clearly illegal surveillance activities and Telecom company illegal support of those activities. In passivity, staged hand-wringing, and acquiescence Congress fuels the bonfire of the Constitution.
And the people, the “real†Americans working every day under delusion that some how our politicians aren’t really stabbing us in the back – nearly complete silence; like peaceful sheep.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:10 am.
A vote on Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey “could be delayed until he provides written answers to questions raised Thursday†by Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT). In yesterday’s hearings, Mukasey refused to denounce torture and expressed support for expanded executive authority.
This guy has turned out to be just another Bush sycophant. If the Democrats allow his confirmation, we might as well just declare our government null and void and make Bush our permanent dictator.
What is wrong with the Democrats? Why do they keep rolling over?
Write Harry Reid and tell him that we don’t want his man as our AG.
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/
October 19th, 2007 at 9:15 amWow. Nothing like the thought of Bob & Elizabeth Dole getting it on to wake a guy up in the morning.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:17 amThanks so much, TP.
The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday voted 13-2 to approve a bill tightening rules on government wiretapping. The legislation would also contains a “highly controversial†grant of legal immunity for telecoms, a provision demanded by the White House.
That means all but two of the Democrats on the committee voted for this travesty. Send them e-mails and call them to say how disappointed in them we are.
And thank god for Chris Dodd. I was very disappointed in Keith Olberman last night. He didn’t even mention the fact that Dodd has put a hold on the bill much less compliment him for doing so. I wonder why that was?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:19 amA new report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction states that U.S. attempts at political reconciliation, economic growth, and building an effective police force in Iraq “have failed to show significant progress in nearly every one of the nation’s provincial regions and the capital.â€
But, but…we have driven off AQI in Iraq, that’s progress. NOT! Even if it was true, which I doubt, how can defeating 5% of fighters be considered a “victory”. There are still the other 95% and we are making new insurgents every day. I’m fairly sure that we have made enough new insurgents to take the place of the few AQI we have supposedly driven out of Iraq. So, it’s probably a net gain.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am“136: Number of people who were killed by a suicide bomber in Karachi, Pakistan, yesterday.”
But since this terrorist attack didn’t occur on American soil, I guess it doesn’t matter — right?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am>He didn’t even mention the fact that Dodd has put a hold
>on the bill much less compliment him for doing so.
Has he actually done it yet?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:25 amPakistan is NOT a US interest!
-Shotgun Dick’s Mendacious Hag of a Wife, Lynn
October 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amHouse aide Greg Lankler, who has been subpoenaed in the corruption investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), has promised to “fight†the order.
Why shouldn’t he. Bush has set the bar for this kind of thing. Subpoena..I don’t need no stinkin subpoena. We are becoming a lawless country. Who stole the America I love and when can we have her back?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amYeah, but how long will Dodd hold out?
And if the program was “legal” **cough… cough** why the need for immunity? Wouldn’t asking, or DEMANDING, the immunity be granted serve as a tacit admission of guilt? Why should telecomms be gratned immunity before we even know what they did?
This is so F-in’ fruit-loopy it defies belief. It’s like the old Soviet Union, circa 1955. It also makes me wonder if nacchio’s prosecution for insider trading was politically motivated… payback, ya know, for refusing to go along w/ the Fascist takeover of the country.
Of course, on the other hand, the GWOT has been a smashing success for certain involved parties. They’ve managed to get rid of that pesky Constitution, we’re now stuck in an endless, unwinnable war, and oil profits are going thru the roof!
We’re #1! We’re #1! We’re #1! We’re #1!
October 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am136: Number of people who were killed by a suicide bomber in Karachi, Pakistan, yesterday. Thousands turned out for the return of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
Anyone want to guess who was responsible for trying to kill her? My bets on Musharraf, who isn’t thrilled at the prospect of having to run against her. But, he’s our friend so we will support him. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:28 am“Expanded executive authority”…sure lets give the keys to the kingdom to a retard.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:30 amCertain parties have been trying to kill Musharrif all along. Eventually, they will succeed and the radical Islamists will indeed have that nuclear weapon they want so badly.
However, this was an attempt on a rival. Not sure waht this means. Was Musharrif trying to rid himself of a nettlesome bother? Why would the radicals want Bhutto dead?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:31 amIf Mukasey was Herr Brusch’s hand-picked flunky for AG, did you really expect him to NOT toe the party line?
All this makes me wonder just how many guest bungalows they’re building at the family compound in Paraguay.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:33 amWhat I don’t understand about the Democrats giving immunity to the telcoms is, if they really want to give them immunity, why don’t they do it outside the bill. Why don’t they tell the telcoms they will grant them immunity in return for their testifying as to who, what, when, where, why and how they agreed to participate in illegal wiretapping. What they are doing here is total capitulation to Bush and it makes no sense other than the fact that many of the Democrats receive campaign contributions from the telcoms, especially Jay Rockefeller. Right Mr. Rockefeller and tell him what you think about his lack of spine and selling us down the river:
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
He only receives e-mail from Virginia residents, but this is easy to get around. If you look in the lower right hand corner of his Contact page, you will see his street address. Use his office address as your address, or at least use the City and Zip. That will get you around his filters.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:34 amJust the kind of man we want in charge of Federal Prosecuting Attorneys, “Loyal Bushies,” who have been tasked with investigating political opponents….NOT!
October 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am“The Coast Guard is planning its first operating base there (in the Arctic) as a way of dealing with the cruise ships and the tankers that are already beginning to ply Arctic waters.â€
Is THIS how they’re spinning this? Is there anybody here who doesn’t believe the purpose of this operating base is to grab the oil there before anyone else does, now that the ice has melted enough to make Arctic oil obtainable?
Look — we need oil, and everybody knows it. What’s wrong with telling the truth? Keeping our dirty little addiction in the closet isn’t working anymore.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:36 amGoing to apologize before hand for the long post, but when I read of it I thought the people on TP would appreciate it:
Her hair was up in a pony tail,
her favorite dress tied with a bow.
Today was Daddy’s Day at school,
and she couldn’t wait to go.
But her mommy tried to tell her,
that she probably should stay home.
Why the kids might not understand,
if she went to school alone.
But she was not afraid;
she knew just what to say.
What to tell her classmates
of why he wasn’t there today.
But still her mother worried,
for her to face this day alone.
And that was why once again,
she tried to keep her daughter home.
But the little girl went to school
eager to tell them all.
About a dad she never sees
a dad who never calls.
There were daddies along the wall in back,
for everyone to meet.
Children squirming impatiently,
anxious in their seats
One by one the teacher called
a student from the class.
To introduce their daddy,
as seconds slowly passed.
At last the teacher called her name,
every child turned to stare.
Each of them was searching,
a man who wasn’t there.
“Where’s her daddy at?”
She heard a boy call out.
“She probably doesn’t have one,”
another student dared to shout.
And from somewhere near the back,
she heard a daddy say,
“Looks like another deadbeat dad,
too busy to waste his day.”
The words did not offend her,
as she smiled up at her Mom.
And looked back at her teacher,
who told her to go on.
And with hands behind her back,
slowly she began to speak.
And out from the mouth of a child,
came words incredibly unique.
“My Daddy couldn’t be here,
because he lives so far away.
But I know he wishes he could be,
since this is such a special day.
And though you cannot meet him,
I wanted you to know.
All about my daddy,
and how much he loves me so.
He loved to tell me stories
he taught me to ride my bike.
He surprised me with pink roses,
and taught me to fly a kite.
We used to share fudge sundaes,
and ice cream in a cone.
And though you cannot see him
I’m not standing here alone.
“Cause my daddy’s always with me,
even though we are apart
I know because he told me,
he’ll forever be in my heart”
With that, her little hand reached up,
and lay across her chest.
Feeling her own heartbeat,
beneath her favorite dress.
And from somewhere there in the crowd of dads,
her mother stood in tears.
Proudly watching her daughter,
who was wise beyond her years.
For she stood up for the love
of a man not in her life.
Doing what was best for her,
doing what was right.
And when she dropped her hand back down,
staring straight into the crowd.
She finished with a voice so soft,
but its message clear and loud.
“I love my daddy very much,
he’s my shining star.
And if he could, he’d be here,
but heaven’s just too far.
You see he is a Marine
and died just this past year
When a roadside bomb hit his convoy
and taught Americans to fear.
But sometimes when I close my eyes,
it’s like he never went away.”
And then she closed her eyes,
and saw him there that day.
And to her mother’s amazement,
she witnessed with surprise.
A room full of daddies and children,
all starting to close their eyes.
Who knows what they saw before them,
who knows what they felt inside.
Perhaps for merely a second,
they saw him at her side.
“I know you’re with me Daddy,”
to the silence she called out.
And what happened next made believers,
of those once filled with doubt.
Not one in that room could explain it,
October 19th, 2007 at 9:37 amfor each of their eyes had been closed.
But there on the desk beside her,
was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
While we’re at it, Congress could grant immunity from criminal charges and civil complaints relating to the commission of War Crimes….oh, wait…they already did.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:37 amSqueegee, thanks.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am#15 – Oops, the address in the lower right corner is his Washington address. Just go to his contact page and copy the zip for Charleston and make up an address. That will work.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:39 amAlthough I hated his politics, George Corley Wallace was absolutely correct when he ran on the slogan (I am paraphrasing here) that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the dims and rethugs. So, you don’t have to be a progressive to understand the veracity of his observation.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:40 amBut since this terrorist attack didn’t occur on American soil, I guess it doesn’t matter — right?
Comment by missmolly
Right.
Now, if that attack had been done on American soil, people would be:
Why us? OMG. We are so good. The world should be with us in our pain, blah, blah, blah.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:41 amLook — we need oil, and everybody knows it. What’s wrong with telling the truth? Keeping our dirty little addiction in the closet isn’t working anymore.
Comment by missmolly — October 19, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Both the Canadians and Russians are racing to beef up their miltary presence in the area too. Wonderful news…
Snark/off…
October 19th, 2007 at 9:41 ambilbo, and all – when i click on the contact link for whichever senator
from this link, i have no problem sending messages/emails…
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
October 19th, 2007 at 9:42 amAnyone got a phone # for Rockefeller they don’t hand out to us “common folk”?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:43 amShame on you, squeegeeboo, for that jingoistic bullshit. For shame.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am>He didn’t even mention the fact that Dodd has put a hold
>on the bill much less compliment him for doing so.
Has he actually done it yet?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus
I’m not sure if he has actually done it yet, but the fact that he says he will do it is certainly worth mention, don’t you think?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:46 amBut since this terrorist attack didn’t occur on American soil, I guess it doesn’t matter — right?
Comment by missmolly — October 19, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Actually, under the terms of the signing order wherein Herr Brusch magnanimouly granted himself top-secret, double-double secret super powers in case of an emergency, wouldn’t this act be enough to trigger things off and turn Brusch into a Super Super Hero (and of course, give him complete control of the country in perpetuity)?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amComment by Squegeeboo — October 19, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Nice piece of glurge, but it just serves to point out that every one of the deaths so far in Bush’s little ego war is somebody’s son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother.
Bring them home.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amGlurge???
October 19th, 2007 at 9:48 amShame on you, squeegeeboo, for that jingoistic bullshit. For shame.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Yeah, I thought the same.
Although there are stories like that every day in the US, there are worse stories, non-flavored by corny details in other parts of the world. That is using the pain of real people in order to trivialize it.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:49 ambilbo, and all – when i click on the contact link for whichever senator
from this link, i have no problem sending messages/emails…
http://senate.gov/ general/ contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm
Click on Rockefeller on that page and it takes you to his personal home page. Apparently he doesn’t filter his e-mail to his home state like so many other Senators do. I assumed that he did. That shows you what happens when you “assume”. Thanks for the tip.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am#22 ~ There’s no difference between them and the politicians who would replace them either. Our problems come from allowing private interests to execute and intervene the public will. At this point, it’s institutional.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:50 amread this just now… a day late, maybe, but more to come, i hear…
so, for future reference… this column spells it out simply:
Our Health ‘System’ Isn’t ‘Conservative’
Froma Harrop
[...]
But even if the counters were gold, I wouldn’t care. America needs a universal health-care plan that puts the rich and poor, young and old, sick and well into one big insurance pool.
[...]
The right does these issues on automatic pilot — and the left knows how to hit back — but the center feels conflicted. Megan McArdle, a blogger for The Atlantic magazine’s Website, worries about forcing families to sell assets to qualify for public health-care benefits. “On the other hand,” she writes, “many people, including me, don’t want to pay for the health care of someone so that they can stay in their Park Avenue mansion.”
Honey, you already do.
The taxpayers are footing the medical bills of many a Park Avenue swell over 65. There’s little means testing in Medicare, yet Bush pushed a drug benefit on top of the program’s already generous coverage. It will cost many times the price of SCHIP, even were it to cover the likes of Graeme Frost.
So let’s discuss what the panic is really about. Republicans know that once government health coverage seeps up into the middle class, there’s no stopping it.
Note how Bush does this big “compassionate conservative” thing about very much wanting SCHIP for poor people.
Programs for the poor are fine, because you can always cut the living daylights out of them. Politicians who mess with middle class benefits find their heads in the return mail.
[...]
Really, how did American workers become the last people in any industrialized democracy to be subject to such anxiety about paying for medical care? They already fund the health care of retirees, the poor, the disabled, convicts and government employees, including members of Congress. Their taxes pay for everyone’s health care except their own.
[...]
Right-wingers, give it up! You’re fighting a battle you shouldn’t want to win. A country without universal coverage isn’t conservative. It’s primitive.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma-harrop/our-health-system-isn-t-conservative.html
October 19th, 2007 at 9:51 am.
Lefty Patriot
Shame on you, squeegeeboo, for that jingoistic bullshit. For shame.
I didn’t think of it as jingoistic.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amGlurge???
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 19, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Yes, glurge. A term popularized by snopes.com. It refers to sickly sweet stories designed to tug at the heart strings (often with the claim of “this is a true story”). They have an entire collection of this kind of stuff that makes its way into many e-mail inboxes. If you’re a sucker for glurge, check this out:
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/glurge.asp
October 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amSenator Reid,
If reports are true that you plan to by-pass Senator Dodd’s principled stand to save the rule of law as he fights Rockefeller’s ‘yet another Democratic caving to the Bush Administration’ criminality by granting immunity to Telecom co-conspirators I say to you: HOW DARE YOU! You have the nerve and bald-faced corruption to fight Chris Dodd on his principled stand. In broad day light you seek to trade our rights and the rule of law for Telecom companies that have clearly demonstrated their willingness to support Bush Administration criminality for financial rewards with MY TAX DOLLARS. You and the rest of the so-called “Democratic Leadership’s†lack of principle and continuous inability to stop the multiple on-going and yet-to-be-realized criminality of the Bush Administration, and to enshrine past criminality, disgust me – you’re nothing more than Vichy Democrats and if you can’t start getting the job done I will be looking to support Democrats that can.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am>Not one in that room could explain it,
>for each of their eyes had been closed.
>But there on the desk beside her,
>was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
Perphaps it was the IED Fairy Squeegeboo.
Thanks, I did appreciate it, the thought of right-tards getting all weepy and writing (awful) sappy poetry made me chuckle this morning.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amI didn’t think of it as jingoistic.
Comment by Squegeeboo
“Think” is the operative word here.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:55 amThe Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday voted 13-2 to approve a bill tightening rules on government wiretapping. The legislation would also contains a “highly controversial†grant of legal immunity for telecoms, a provision demanded by the White House.
Saw on another site that the Intel Cmte. believes the telcos acted in good faith (who wouldn’t want to help in tracking terrorists?) and thought that their actions were lawful because the Bush administration told them it was. In other words, it wasn’t the telcos’ fault that they broke the law.
Can I use that when I’m next pulled over for speeding? “Officer, I swear, I didn’t see the speed limit sign showing a lower speed. I didn’t know I was breaking the law. I acted in good faith because I wanted to get to work on time to prevent my employer from losing production.”
October 19th, 2007 at 9:56 amGlurge… okay.
I kinda figured something like that. I like it.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:56 amChocolate Jesus
Thanks, I did appreciate it, the thought of right-tards getting all weepy and writing (awful) sappy poetry made me chuckle this morning.
Well I can’t say that I know the politics for sure of the person who posted it on the other forum I frequent (a bike one), but I do know they are somewhat involved in politics from a pro-union stand point, hate walmart, and live in the san-fran area, so ‘right-tards’ might not be the best description of her.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:56 amsqueegee – that’s been floating around the wingers’ emails
for years now… sob… sniff… poor baby… poor babies…
and moms, dads, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmas and pas………
so sweet…
gag, i say…
BRING ‘EM ALL HOME.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:57 am.
From TPM Muckraker, Reid is going to screw Dodd.
Makes you wonder why he allowed Republicans to kill all those bills when all he had to do was bring them to the floor anyway.
Keep up the support for Dodd!
October 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amI am amazed the Dems are now giving there telecom buddies immunity AFTER they said they wouldn’t. Let us now call the Dems party the “Bend Over” party. HAHA
October 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amHey, TP.
You dudes are progressives, right? Howz about a word for CHRIS DODD who has put a hold on the Telecoms Amnesty bill?
You seem to agree the amnesty is controversial, why not credit the Senator who is actually doing something about it? Or do you already have a dog in the Primary hunt?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am>If reports are true that you plan to
> by-pass Senator Dodd’s principled stand
dude….does anyone have links with any info about this? this is insane! are we in bizarro world? reid is honoring secret holds of rightwing scumbags but is breaking senate rules to disregard one from his own side?
jesus f@cking christ… im honestly starting to wonder whether dems having a filibuster proof majority in 2008 will even mean anything
October 19th, 2007 at 9:58 amI didn’t think of it as jingoistic.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 19, 2007 @
Well, try cheap, manipulative and false.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am>From TPM Muckraker, Reid is going to screw Dodd.
jesus f@cking christ
October 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amComment by bilbobaggins — October 19, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Haven’t you heard? Bush is going to stop counting deaths that occur after sunset, because in the dark they can’t tell if they are being shot by an insurgent or terrorist, or a disgruntled shopkeeper.
Thus, even more success will soon be reported.
(snark)
October 19th, 2007 at 10:01 amkaty
that’s been floating around the wingers’ emails
for years now… sob… sniff… poor baby… poor babies…
and moms, dads, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmas and pas………
so sweet…
I would think someones daughter being left fatherless, regardless of how sappy/touching it is, would make it something the wingers wouldn’t pass around. Seemed to me that it was an anti-war poem for the most part. From what I’m hearing here apparently I’m wrong in that regard though.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am>so ‘right-tards’ might not be the best description of her.
maybe not, but whoever wrote that definitely had a republican-level grasp of the english language…the kind you get from being homeschooled in a trailer park in BFE like micheal..
October 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amComment by pluege — October 19, 2007 @ 9:54 am
And I keep wondering; Why in the Hell haven’t Hil, Obama, Edwards, et al, ripped into this? Could it be all the money they have accepted into their campaign coffers or do they really believe immunity is the proper thing to do.
Neither answer is acceptable. I am seeing no difference between them and the Repugs!
October 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amSnopes has covered the many incarnations of that poem.
Interesting Think Fast topic….I guess.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:11 amBut, but…we have driven off AQI in Iraq, that’s progress. NOT! Even if it was true, which I doubt, how can defeating 5% of fighters be considered a “victoryâ€. There are still the other 95% and we are making new insurgents every day. I’m fairly sure that we have made enough new insurgents to take the place of the few AQI we have supposedly driven out of Iraq. So, it’s probably a net gain.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 19, 2007 @ 9:24 am
AND, don’t forget that there was no AQI before we invaded and occupied a sovereign country! All the 24%ers conveniently let that one slip right on by.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amsorry, squeege… nothing personal…
i knew the snopes story of the poem being bastardized,
so i reacted accordingly…
i got lots of that sappy crap from my winger family…
after i’d respond with factual stories from TP and the like,
i’ve been left alone… thankfully…
you had good intentions… thanks for that!
October 19th, 2007 at 10:28 am:-)
Remember when we were warned about $100 a barrel oil and how it would drive consumer gas prices over $4 a gallon?
Why is the price of oil not translating into higher prices at the pumps now, like it has in the past?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:29 amsmall comfort guys…even if this immunity does become law, the immunity itself may likely be susceptible to legal challenge. The lawsuit alledges, amongst other things, that AT+T assisted the government in constitutional rights violations… I’m pretty sure that a law can’t legitimize or sanction unconstitutional acts, which is what this immunity seems to be doing…
October 19th, 2007 at 10:31 amso, unless I’m just really off base here, and I don’t pretend to be a constitutional law expert by any means, I think the immunity means a setback but not the end of the game.
Candyce
Why is the price of oil not translating into higher prices at the pumps now, like it has in the past?
There has been a 10 cent jump in my area, but I think the reason why you aren’t seeing a larger jump, is because after the last oil price spike the cost of gas never deflated all the way, so until very recently gas was still overpriced from an oil cost stand point.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amhttp://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70126
October 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amWhy is the price of oil not translating into higher prices at the pumps now, like it has in the past? -Candyce
I speculate the devaluation of the dollar…
October 19th, 2007 at 10:34 amFranken wins some of Ben Stein’s money
So apparently Stein has donated to Franken’s campaign, which is fine, but this one line in the article caught my eye:
“Friendship trumps ideology, by the way, as it should,” said U.S. Sen Norm Coleman, whom Franken hopes to unseat in 2008.
Isn’t that part of what the current issue is. ‘Friendship’ trumping values/views/competency/etc?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:37 amuh oh… what’s up with this?
Landmark bill on global warming has bipartisan support
Posted : Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:08:07 GMT
WASHINGTON – A landmark bill that will make curbs on greenhouse gases mandatory rather than voluntary was proposed in the US Congress by John Warner (R-Va.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate and calls for reduction of emissions by 60 percent by 2050.
[...]
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/127103.html
somethin’s fishy…
and, ya think 40+ years is enough time, guys?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:38 ami dunno…
.
…..so until very recently gas was still overpriced from an oil cost stand point.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 19, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Thank you. Makes sense. So the idea is to keep gas at the pump overpriced in order to absorb higher crude prices. I mean, once we’re used to $3 a gallon, a mere 20 cents more won’t seem so bad…and so on.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:38 ami wondered if the latest spike in oil price
was related to dubby’s WW3 wish…
think?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:40 amI agree with Missmolly, Katy and Lefty Patriot.
The war has damaged the lives of REAL people and for no justifiable purpose. This sort of maudlin, scatter-lens ‘glorification of the martyrs’ serves only to emotionalize the situation and derail a rational evaluation of reality. We shouldn’t need perfect, sweet, brave victims in order to sympathize with those whose lives have been torn apart by our Government’s evil policies; there are REAL PEOPLE who need our compassion, both here and in Iraq.
We’ve had enough of, “and taught Americans to fear”, thank you very much.
We are in the mess we’re in because we’ve allowed unscrupulous people the power to manipulate emotions and play on fears when we needed a rational, reality-based solution. Those solutions, however, don’t tend to enrich the President’s wealthy friends from the public coffers.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:41 amWhy is the price of oil not translating into higher prices at the pumps now, like it has in the past?
Comment by Candyce — October 19, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Partially, because the cost of crude makes up only about half of the retail cost of gasoline (refining 20%, profits, marketing and taxes the rest). It has been used in the past as a way to drive that price up, but as we approach that $100/bbl and $4/gallon threshold, the major oil companies, who are making obscene profits off the selling and brokering of both the crude and the wholesale gas, are making sure we don’t get up in arms and start to really look into this industry. It has enjoyed such a cushy (and tax-brak) existence since Darth and Company have been in control, that they want as little light shown on their viper pit as possible.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:42 amCandyce
Thank you. Makes sense.
Well that’s just my guess. I’m no economist, and I’ve stopped tracking gas/oil prices as much as I used too since I became a cyclist, so I could be way off. Or I could be somewhat close. Like everything else on the interwebs, take it with a grain of salt is what I guess I’m saying.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am>If they can get torcher to get a pass from the Supreme Court
your talking about torture? right.. technically they didnt get a pass, the supreme court just upheld the lower courts ruling by refusing to examine the case. the strongest telecom suit, by AT+T has the best chance for both evidenary and venue related reseasons.. its in the 9th circuit, which as historically shown the most sypathy to civil liberties…. if the appeals court rules against at+t, the supremes might be forced in a very awkward sitution.,..its all very complicated really, but no, just because the supreme court refused to take the torture case doesnt mean the immunity could necessarily be legitimated by the court…because if you let the government grant immunity to unconsitutional behaviour, that seems on its face to be legitimizing unconstitutional behaviour, which the government cannot do..
for example, if the government could just pass a law that let vigilanes break into hippies houses and look randomly for drugs and then turn those drugs over to the government without any repercussions, that would have the functinal effect of destroying our constitional rights..why would the government even need police in that case, they could just hire private citizens to violate suspects constitional rights…. the more i hear about this immunity law, the more i think i may not pass constitional muster…
October 19th, 2007 at 10:49 amNot that I condone the immunization proposal for the telecom companies, but if what I’ve read is correct doesn’t the proposal protect them only from lawsuits resulting from activities they have been involved with SINCE 9/11? Seems to me the door is being left slightly open to uncover and possibly prosecute telecoms for complicity with the Administration in THEIR illegal activities from February 2001 up to September. This mostly overlooked, delicately nuanced wording in the proposal is probably pissing off King George to no end. He won’t admit to spying on Americans pre-9/11 (his very justifications for DOING THIS were THE ATTACKS ON 9/11) so how could he possibly publicly complain about the immunization covering only activities that occured after? Seems to me that the telecoms could still find themselves, quite deservedly, in deep doo-doo anyway, no?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:50 amSimple math indicates the price of a barrel of oil versus the price of a gallon of gas does not add up.
If oil is $90.00 for 50 gallons, and 50 gallons of gasoline at $3.00 per gallon equals $150.00, we’re only allowing $60.00 for production costs.
This in itself does not compute.
And I don’t know how many gallons of gasoline can be derived from a barrel of crude, but my guess is less than half…….
October 19th, 2007 at 10:51 amThis is an interesting story.
Two reporters for the Phoenix New Times were arrested Thursday night by Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies on charges of revealing grand jury information, a misdemeanor. On Thursday they had described in the paper a subpoena the paper reportedly received from a local grand jury.
The reporters maintain they are being muzzled for their reporting, but here’s the interesting part.
Quick, clear your caches!
October 19th, 2007 at 10:52 amhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003660673
Forgot to add the link to above story.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:52 amThe Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday voted 13-2 to approve a bill tightening rules on government wiretapping. The legislation would also contains a “highly controversial†grant of legal immunity for telecoms, a provision demanded by the White House.
Politics as usual. Dems want to insure that the flow of campaign money continues to flow from the telecoms to them so they can regain control in 2009. The federal legislative process is now controlled by big business and will not change until average Americans demand to have a voice in how America is run.
Given the current funding mechanisms for federal elections, this will not change after the Dems are in control so expect to continue to witness token outrage being exhibited by members of congress toward big business to satisfy the average American voter’s anger, but the flow of cash will dictate how they vote.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am>by AT+T
whoops, I mean AGAINST AT+T , by the electronic frontier foundation
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0515-05.htm
October 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amThe price rise rattled stock markets, which dropped for a second straight day, in part because of concerns that rising fuel costs would siphon money from consumer budgets and thwart efforts by the Federal Reserve to prop up the economy while containing inflation.
The oil conglomerate will get beat up if they keep raising prices.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am>Seems to me that the telecoms could still find themselves, quite >deservedly, in deep doo-doo anyway, no?
Yes, but I suspect the language they used in the immunity opens the door for blanket dismissals regardless of timeframe. Again, the more I think about it, the more I think that almost no judges, not even conservative judges, are going to hold that a law that lets the government immunize from liability the people who help them violate the constitution is valid.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:58 amIt would effectively let the government violate the constition by private proxy…
Yes, but that is still not the point.
If they did nothing wrong, why do they need Immunity?
They are telling everyone that they have committed crimes, but we are to pardon them despite that because the govt says they need thier help?
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 10:58 am
They need immunity so that they won’t be able to tell the country what Bush’s spy program actually involved. It’s not the telecoms that are being protected with this clause. It’s Bush and Cheney and Rove. They don’t want the telecom companies telling anyone what happened.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am>something MUCH worse was being done and approved!
In a different circuit.. yes.. thats true.. but again, the government may not fare as well in this circuit, which is more liberal.. And actually, let me clarify something.. the appeals court ruling in the torture case was about whether the case should be dissmissed because of the governments claim of state secrets..it had nothing to do with the merits of the case, or legitimacy of torture itself. both the torture case and the current AT+T case arent even to the stage where the merits of the cases themselves are being debated….as of now, all that is at issue is whether the government can invoke the concept of state secrets to quash the lawsuit… so far, the judges in the 9th circuit have shown MUCH more inclination to disregard the states secrets doctrine than the circuit in the torture case has..and if the government tries to invoke this immunity law as yet another reason to quash the telecom case, that immunity law will, i beleive, be litigated in the same circuit the case is currently is in. so basically, congress can make all the laws they want, a judge from the 9th still has to agree its constitional to dismiss the case before they can do so..
October 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amIf they did nothing wrong, why do they need Immunity?
They are telling everyone that they have committed crimes, but we are to pardon them despite that because the govt says they need thier help?
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 10:58 am
I agree with you that any party innocent of wrongdoing doesn’t require immunity.
But to be fair, the issue here isn’t immunity from criminal charges, it’s immunity from lawsuits that Bush wants. And in a lawsuit — even if the defendant isn’t found liable in any way — a whole bunch of nasty stuff can get outed, which is what Bush is trying to avoid.
The only way I would support immunity for the telecoms is if they agree to sing their little hearts out in exchange for it.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amThis is the actual story from Tim Stark’s article in Congressional Quarterly that TPM Muckracker refers to. There is NOTHING in this article that says Reid is going to introduce the bill in November DESPITE Dodd’s hold.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002608382.html
October 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am>There was NO reason not to take it, other than that!
yes, but again, they only had the luxury of doing that because the court below them made a ruling in the governments favor. They basically got “a dodge”….think about it… they may secretly approve of torture, but if they were really and truly willing to offically put thier stamp of approval on it, why not take the case and then say “torture is ok” or “state secrets are more important than whether we torture people or not”? But they didnt do that, and theres a reason they didnt do that….there must have been some reason they weren’t willing to “officially” legitmize it, even if they “unofficially” legitimized it, by ignoring it, as you suggest.
If you put the justices in an awkward position where they have to say something, they may actually say the right thing, if for no other reason
than the fact they dont want to look like monster..
Only time will tell, we shall see…
October 19th, 2007 at 11:28 amWhat do you all think about the fact Nancy Palosi knew in 2000 of the cheney , bush wire tapping.?..Now that she is speaker of the house and has taken impeachment off the table, what does that say about her.? Who’s side are the leading dem’s on.?…..When one know’s about a crime being comitted and doe’s nothing, and then further enables the criminal’s isn’t that person just as guilty.? I think so……Blessings
October 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amGlenn Greenwald emailed Reid to get an answer to the Dodd hold issue:
October 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Anyone want to guess who was responsible for trying to kill her? My bets on Musharraf, who isn’t thrilled at the prospect of having to run against her.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 19, 2007 @ 9:28 am
He isn’t running against her. He is going to remain President after giving up his post as chief of the army (on paper, anyway). Bhutto is likely to be elected Prime Minister.
>>Certain parties have been trying to kill Musharrif all along. Eventually, they will succeed and the radical Islamists will indeed have that nuclear weapon they want so badly. However, this was an attempt on a rival. Not sure waht this means. Was Musharrif trying to rid himself of a nettlesome bother? Why would the radicals want Bhutto dead?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 19, 2007 @ 9:31 am
For the same reason they want to kill Musharef – she supports Bush’s WOT and has said so. Throw in there she is a WOMAN who dares to not wear a Burka and in fact was head of state.
Bhutto and Musharef are definitely rivals, but Musharef made the judgement he couldn’t take fire from the radical AQ/Taliban freaks on his right and the liberal Bhutto supporters on his left, so he has entered an alliance of convenience with Bhutto. I hope it works out, if it did it would be good for the US.
The chances Musharef ordered this are virtually nil. He NEEDS her alive and friendly. He re-exiled another former rival a month or so ago – Bhutto would not have attempted to return without his blessings, and in fact he has compromised with her already by giving up his military post – again, on paper, anyway.
That said, the ISI and elements of the Paki army are riddled with AQ and Taliban; both Musharef and Bhutto are good candidates to join the Anwar Sadat club, though I sure hope it doesn’t happen.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amwitch1 – you need to supply a link, please…
how’s that new mac working out for you, btw?
October 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am:-)
That said, the ISI and elements of the Paki army are riddled with AQ and Taliban; both Musharef and Bhutto are good candidates to join the Anwar Sadat club, though I sure hope it doesn’t happen.
Comment by Keltoi — October 19, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Which makes it all the more painful that Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan and effectively allowed the Taliban to regroup and gain more support in Pakistan. Of course, there is no oil in Afghanistan, but hey, there is opium!
October 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amThank you for the correction Romove Bush…..Back at ya Katy….The article about Palosi and the NSA was posted on Tom Panes.com this past Tuesday..Called a friend in Montana and she had heard about it before but didn’t have a link….Palosi knew when bush/cheney went into office about the wire tapping, she was one of the few that did…..More need’s to be brought out in the open about all the corruption on both sides…Love the new Mac book but still have a lot to learn….Blessings
October 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWhich makes it all the more painful that Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan and effectively allowed the Taliban to regroup and gain more support in Pakistan. Of course, there is no oil in Afghanistan, but hey, there is opium!
Comment by Nature Rules — October 19, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Well….the Taliban are mainly Pashtun tribesmen, their particular ethnic group straddles the Paki-Afghan border and their allegiances to either nation state takes a backseat to their tribe. The Taliban were actually supported by the ISI in the 90’s when we weren’t talking to the Paks over their nuke program and they wanted to establish a friendly regime on their Western flank so they could focus on India.
My point is, the Taliban enjoyed Pashtun/Pakistani support long before Bush. To totally annihilate the Taliban we would have had to attack Pakistan along with Afghanistan. It is the same problem the Soviets faced in their Afghan adventure.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmSorry for the incorrect address Katy. Here it is….TomPaine.com….It was in the Tuesday listing of Palosi and the NSA……Blessings
October 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pmSo YES, it was still about the OIL.
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Well shit, you learn something everyday. Even though I’m not surprised.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#98 Remove Bush, Thank you for all you do….Blessings
October 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pmhttp://www.wsws.org/ articles/ 2001/ nov2001/ afgh-n20.shtml
http://216.177.7.126/preplanned.html
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
When you publish two links and the World Socialists are the more credible of the two you know you are reaching….
October 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pmAre you paraphrasing, or did he actually say “Reid has nothing but contempt for Dodd’s principled stand�
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 11:46 am
That’s what Greenwald said, in the linked article.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmI just got the Chris Dodd email regarding the hold:
Dear Candyce,
Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?
Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd’s intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.
That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.
So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pmthanks for that, witch1… i found the link…
to be clear, it is an opinion piece, and mcgovern is speculating…
but it’s obviously easy to connect some dots…
Pelosi And The NSA
Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com
October 16, 2007
[...]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted knowing for several years about the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. [...] But was she told that within days of their taking office, the National Security Agency’s electronic vacuum cleaner had already begun to suck up information on Americans—criminal law and the Constitution be damned?
[...]
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/10/16/pelosi_and_the_nsa.php
…
about the mac – yay! … if i can figure it out, anyone can!
i’ve never used another kind, so could be a real dummy about them…
i still don’t know what people mean when they say “right click”…
did you get an imac, a new one? lord! the speed must be amazing compared to you oldie… ha! …
my kids would always say, “just play with it, mom”…
i found out ‘cntrl-z’ (edit-undo) is my best friend…
also, when i figured out how to reduce the desktop menu bar (dock),
October 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pmto keep it from blowing up inadvertantly, i was happier…
a really cool feature, but annoying at times…
maybe the newest models are different… mine’s an 04…
enjoy!
The legislation would also contains a “highly controversial†grant of legal immunity for telecoms, a provision demanded by the White House.
I believe Sen. Dodd is going to squash this.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmCare to dispute the information and not where it came from?????
I thought not!
Comment by RemoveBush — October 19, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Sure, but when you get information should you not “consider the source”? Isn’t that how you justify disregarding out of hand every single thing said by Bush? Or any Republican? They are talking, so they MUST be lying?
As far as the link goes, here is the most specific source reference from the Socialists:
“Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. ”
Insider accounts – well, can’t get more authoritative than that, eh? Later in the article it details how Clinton had been similarly bellicose and we had been plotting this oil grab as far back as 1991.
OF COURSE the 4th Internationale is going to say the US is making an economically motivated imperialistic landgrab – that is what they do! They hate capitalism and see evil in anything we do, it is their MO and has been for a century or more, Democrat or Republican. I am only surprised they waited all the way to November 1, 2001 to start saying it was about oil and not 9-11.
BTW, the Taliban COULD have coughed up Bin Laden and saved their regime. They were given ample public opportunities to do so, not just by us.
As far as the other joke of a website goes, the Internet is too big to address such things, I’ll leave it to you and plunger to mine them for “support”.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pmO. Bigfoot
In fact, I would go so far as to assert that the average citizen’s Constitutional rights have been better recognized and protected under President Bush than under previous administrations.
Wow, that line is worthy of me. Coming from anyone else it would be a blatant snark, but from you, I’m inclined to think you meant it. Either that or you’re the greatest fake troll ever.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pmWitch 1 and Katy – here’s the Tom Paine link regarding Pelosi and NSA survellience.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/10/16/pelosi_and_the_nsa.php
October 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pmIn fact, I would go so far as to assert that the average citizen’s Constitutional rights have been better recognized and protected under President Bush than under previous administrations.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 19, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
How so? Can you give some examples?
(and to the rest of you — I apologize. Normally, that kind of question is the hallmark of troll michael, whose idea of intelligent debate is to ask inane questions. But this assertion of O. Bigfoot’s is so completely “out there” that I’m dying to get some details.)
October 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pmHere is the incredibly high standard of journalism and fact checking Grassroots demands of its contributors and editors:
“Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.â€
Soooo….yeah. Color me skeptical.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThank’s Katy and impeachcheneythenbush…..I do have a lot of learning to do.Still not up to cut and paste or putting us web site’s…..Yep! my old mac was an iMac built in 98 I think, with added memory and a few other thing’s…I recieved it as a gift and blew it up by over load, twice….Still have it and plan to take it to the puter Dr. and get it cleaned out (dump everything) and use it as a back up or a donation to a worthy cause….My new one I baught from Power Max out of Oregon…..Found out about them from a friend who has baught from them in the past and I must say their service is outstanding..They have a nice web site as well..It’s brand new but they also sell refurbished and all kind’s of supplies…….I baught the cute little MacBook and it has all the bell’s and whistle’s, just I haven’t figured out all the tune’s yet….LOL…It’s the little lap top white one..Sorry for the OT and length…..Out of here for awhile, we had a wind storm yesterday, power out for 7 hour’s and must get caught up on tree hugging and chores……..Blessings All
October 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmGood to see your posts, witch1. Your posts are easily identifiable with your former name. Good luck with the new computer.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThank’s Marie………..Blessings
October 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm>There has been no subversion of the citizens Constitutional rights.
If so thats true, which is bush demanding immunity for telecoms if no law was broken?
Oh, and Bigfwat, heres one of those kook left groups, whose members include a Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan, and
a leader of the impeachment of Clinton.
http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/
October 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pm