Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia

We already know, of course, that politicians live primarily for re-election and typically view the truth as an impediment to the higher purpose of unfettered self-aggrandizement.

Still, we can be excused for feeling mildly nauseated when fresh confirmation of this distasteful aspect of modern politicking surfaces.

The latest episode appeared last week in the form of a report that aides to Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, deleted references to his broken term-limits pledge and massive campaign war chest on Wikipedia.

Then the trusty editors at Wikipedia got together and compiled a list of over 1,000 edits made by Internet addresses allocated to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The IP address subsequently was blocked and unblocked.

An extensive analysis reveals how juvenile official Washington secretly is, behind the mind-numbingly serious talk of public policy.

One edit listed White House press secretary Scott McClellan under the entry for "douche." Another said of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma) that: "Coburn was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag."

(Keep in mind these are the same holier-than-thou political climbers tasked with writing laws telling the rest of the country how to behave. Or else.)

This juvenalia is, of course, thoroughly bipartisan. Another change to the Iraq invasion entry shows that the anonymous congressional editor played up the dubious connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

It's true, of course, that the cretins who are behind the Wikipedia alterations can (and probably will) do this from their home computers in the future. But the difficulty in policing the political class shouldn't make us any less alarmed at the most recent evidence of its misdeeds.

NSA Spying Reaches Back To Election?

Over at THE FREE PRESS, columnist Bob Fitrakis raises an interesting question:

Did the NSA help Bush hack the vote?

What are e-voting machines and central tabulators that pass the voting results over electronic networks from the internet to phone lines? No more than data easily spied on and tapped into. The Franklin County Board of Elections, for example, tells us that it was a “transmission error” in Gahanna Ward 1B, where 638 people cast votes and Bush, the Wonder Boy, received 4258 votes. It’s not magic, nor is it an accident or an act of God. If the vote total wasn’t so hugely illogical, no one would have caught it.

Bush and his cabal are notorious for collecting raw intelligence data and using it for their political gain. While many progressives accept the fact that our government manufactured an illegal war in Iraq and routinely violate human rights worldwide, many are reluctant to accept that they would spy on John Kerry and rig the election – which is very easy to do when the NSA does your bidding.

What part of the headline in the Columbus Dispatch: “Diebold vote machine can be hacked, test finds” don’t people understand? The electronic hacking and monitoring of votes by U.S. intelligence agencies has a long history, from mainframe computers in the 70s and 80s to DREs in the 80s and 90s. In face, W.’s father appears to be one of the first beneficiary of e-voting fraud with his victory of Bob Dole in the 1988 New Hampshire primary.

Most voting rights advocates are well aware of Al Gore’s infamous loss of 16,000 votes in the 2000 Florida presidential election, which allowed Bush’s cousin at Fox News to call the election for Dubya. How do we explain the bizarre “rob georgia” Diebold file that Bev Harris of Black Box Voting found on the internet after the stunning upset of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.

Freedom Is On the March

From NYTimes.com :

Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the Mideast
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — The sweeping victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections threw President Bush and his aides on the defensive on Thursday, complicating the administration's policy of trying to promote democracy as an antidote to the spread of terrorism.

From WashingtonPost.com :

Bush Is Conciliatory in Accepting Victory of Hamas
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; A15

...The upbeat rhetoric belied the fact that the election outcome was the opposite of what the administration had hoped would happen. Behind the scenes, U.S. officials scrambled to survey the wreckage of their Middle East policy.

The Bush administration has spent nearly $500 million in the past year to bolster the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah party, which was nonetheless crushed by Hamas at the polls. Against the advice of Israeli officials, the administration had pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold the elections without delay, believing that the voting would strengthen his hand in disarming militia groups. Instead, the plan backfired, and an organization that has claimed credit for dozens of suicide bombings -- some resulting in the deaths of Americans -- is poised to take power.

Using Terrorism As A Smoke-Screen

Harvey Wasserman voices what a lot of the Civil Rights activists are saying -- but he says it so well:

Are you ready to be bugged and tortured by George W. Bush?
It's not really terrorists George W. Bush wants to bug and torture. It's YOU.

It's not really terrorism he wants to fight. It's opposition from people he can't control.

It's not really US security he wants to protect. It's the power of his regime.

The Constitutional debate about whether these executive privileges are allowable in war is a smoke screen.

This isn't about war: It's about dictatorship. It’s about making power permanent by using private information against you, and by terrifying you with torture.

Team Bush believes it rules by Divine right. It has already re-defined "terrorist" to mean anyone who questions its power. It will use "anti-terrorist" wiretapping as a tool against anyone who dares oppose it.

All serious indicators show that "information" extracted by torture is virtually worthless in fighting terrorism. So is the information taken from wiretapping huge numbers of people, which Bush has been doing since before 9/11.

So ask yourself: if granted the power to torture, do you trust the Bush Administration---or any regime- - to refrain from torturing its political opponents? If granted the power to record private phone conversations, do you trust Karl Rove to not use this material against his political opponents?

Who will Bush go after first? Al Queda or the Quakers? Bin Laden or Cindy Sheehan?

If Bush gets away with this, then it's simple: if you are too outspoken in opposing this regime's destruction of social security, or the natural environment, or the economy, you will sooner or later be subject to torture.

If Bush's phone buggers pick up information or statements taken out of context that can incriminate or make you look bad, Rove will not hesitate to leak them to FOX and use them for partisan purposes.

The Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear about banning these abuses. The patriotic Americans who demanded the Bill of Rights knew these powers must be outlawed to retain any hope of preserving our freedom and democracy. That's why they did so, clearly and explicitly.

Those who support giving Bush these powers are undoubtedly ready and willing to be tortured and bugged themselves.

As for the rest of us, there can be no compromise with tyranny.

Democratic Doormats

Big Bold Headline at Buzzflash:

Harry Reid Says the Fight is Over. He Can't Get 41 Votes for a Filibuster. If He Can't Beat a Bush Nominee So Bad the NYT Called for a Filibuster -- and a President so Corrupted and Failed, He Should Step Down as Minority Leader. He's Not a Leader; He's an Enabler. The White House and Frist are Laughing at the Dems. What Will be Harry's Excuse Next Time? He's Not Leading An Opposition Party; The Senate Dems are Just a Doormat.

Hear No Evil

No matter how many times the military brass points out that we don't have enough troops, the administration denies the facts.

Top U.S. General Says Army 'Stretched' - By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006

The top U.S. general in Iraq acknowledged Thursday that American forces are "stretched" but said troop withdrawals will be dictated by war strategy and not the strain faced by the soldiers.

Gen. George Casey's remarks contrasted sharply with statements made on Wednesday by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who disputed findings of an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon that said the Army is overextended because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush shrugged off the report Thursday.

This is just confirming what we knew a long time back. Gen. Shineski was right that if we were going to pull Iraq off "right" or at least substantially increase the odds of reasonable success, pretty much the entire deployable US Army and Marine Corps would have been needed to flood Iraq with manpower intensive security on April 9, 2003. This is not the analysis of some wild eyed think tank analyst, but the analysis of Paul Bremer as Reuters reports the following:

In an interview on NBC Television broadcast Sunday night, Bremer said he sent a memo to Rumsfeld suggesting that half a million soldiers would be needed, three times the number deployed by the Bush administration.

"I never had any reaction from him," Bremer told NBC's Brian Williams on "Dateline."

Although he never heard back from his direct boss, Bremer said he did discuss his concerns with Bush.

Quoting Bremer, the network said Bush replied that he would try to get more troops from other countries "but made no mention of increasing the number of American forces."

Yet every time that there is question about troop strength in Iraq the White House response is that the force levels are an operational commander level decision and not a NCA level decision --- ie the field generals are getting everything that they asked for.

You Mean He Didn't Confess To A Crime?

Here is today's NON-surprise:

Bush Confident Warrantless Wiretaps Legal
Jan 26 12:10 PM US/Eastern
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON

President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.

"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.

Nicely Put ....

I couldn't have stated it better than Pissed on Politics:

I guess things do need to be repeated as President Bush would say to "catapult the propaganda". No matter how often it is said and no matter how much the evidence mounts some people, approximately 35% of this nation, refuse to acknowledge that President Bush misled our nation into War with Iraq.

What's worse, these people want to excuse the actions of President Bush with a simple "look at all the good we are doing in Iraq" or "have we been attacked yet since 9/11"? These are right wing mantras some people chant to themselves which a few people are actually starting to believe even though they are blatant lies.

We did not go to Iraq to spread freedom and democracy.

It is not better to "fight'em over there so we don't fight'em here".

Only 6% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters. We are not fightening'em in Iraq. Most of "them" are not in Iraq. We are fighting Iraqis who want us out of their country.

Iraq and Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda

Iraq and Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States

Iraq and Saddam had no WMD

President Bush manipulated intelligence and masterfully used propaganda to win support for his war.

The Iraqis don't want a Democracy, they want a Theocracy. So where does that leave us? Fighting for the creation of an Islamic State? Is that the objective?

We are never leaving Iraq. The truth is the United States could care less about establishing a democracy in Iraq. All we want are permanent military installations in the Middle East. Iraq was the easiest target. Saudi Arabia would not allow us to keep our military in their country. Turkey will not allow us to have air bases in their country.

Bush and the NeoCons went to Iraq to establish a permanent military foothold in the Middle East. Iraq was the easiest target to justify.

Iraq will not have a democracy. Iraq will most likely be split into two if not three countries. In the best case scenario these Iraqi States will be peaceful and we will have our military outposts there.

In the worst case a civil war will break out with our troops caught in the middle. We will be driven out of Iraq and not even be able to keep our muli-million dollar military bases.

$2 Trillion dollars and countless thousands of lives will be all for not.

But don't you worry about it; Bush is doing a heckuva job.

"We Do Not Torture!"

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

"We do not torture," President Bush told reporters during a visit to Panama.

He said enemies were plotting to hurt the US and our government would pursue them, but would do so "under the law".

Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that repeated protestations from President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other US administration officials that "we do not torture" miss the point that the US has by any meaningful standard engaged in illegal cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners and needs to change course urgently.

"US Attorney General Gonzales claimed that what we saw in the photos was not approved, but we can’t believe Alberto Gonzales. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized the stripping of persons naked, use of dogs, and hooding as interrogation tactics in an action memo on December 2, 2002 and in another memo on April 16, 2003, adding that if additional interrogation techniques for a particular detainee were required he might approve them upon written request. There is no indication that his 2003 illegal authorization has been withdrawn. We can’t trust Donald Rumsfeld. Moreover, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski stated in August of this year that after Major General Miller was sent to Iraq to GITMOize interrogation tactics a Rumsfeld memo was posted on a pole outside at Abu Ghraib and that it authorized the use of dogs for interrogation."

Paust is the Mike & Teresa Baker Law Center Professor at the University of Houston and a former Captain, U.S. Army JAGC and member of the faculty at the Judge Advocate General’s School (1969-1973). He is also Co-Chair of the American Society of International Law International Criminal Interest Group.

According to Media Matters for America, the public is getting false information from the media as well as the government.

* NPR's Renee Montagne failed to note Bush administration has not ruled out "waterboarding" torture (December 16, 2005)

* Several times Bill O'Reilly (FOX News) falsely claimed Geneva Conventions apply only to "uniform[ed]" soldiers "fighting for a recognized country" (December 12, 2005)

* Rush Limbaugh repeated NewsMax.com's false claim that McCain "admitted that torture worked on him" (December 9, 2005)

* Limbaugh also falsely suggested that "9-11 Commission didn't say anything about" torture (December 8, 2005)


CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

According to today's dispatch from Associated Press:

Investigator: U.S. 'Outsourced' Torture
By JAN SLIVA, Associated Press Writer

The head of a European investigation into alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe said Tuesday that evidence pointed to the existence of a system of "outsourcing" of torture by the United States, and that it was highly likely European governments were aware of it.

Chris Matthews Compares Bin-Laden -- Michael Moore

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

A remark by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in which he said that Osama bin-Laden "sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore" has outraged opponents of the war in Iraq and leading Democrats including former presidential candidate John Kerry. Matthews made the comment during an interview with Sen. Joseph Biden on Hardball Thursday in which they discussed an audio tape by bin-Laden that aired earlier in the day on Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Kerry commented: "You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama bin-Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war. ... If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama bin-Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape."

Democrats Are No Opposition

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE
Geov Parrish at WorkingForChange.com had an interesting conversation with Noam Chomsky, who observed that President Bush would be in deep political trouble today -- if only the Democrats were a real opposition party. But they're not, so Bush isn't.

The hearings for Samuel Alito for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court are just one more example of the Dems lying down and rolling over. With four strong Republicans on the court already, Alito would give the Right a majority on the high court -- Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy. Of course, the Republicans already have majorities in the Senate and House.

Voters from the liberal side fear the court's tampering with abortion the most. But other issues are also at risk -- civil rights being trampled, corporate entitites being favored, and the omnipotent powers exercised by the Executive branch.

Every once in a while, we hear the term "Checks and Balances," but there seem to be none now. The president can declare war without the House. He can wiretap and kidnap citizens, holding them without trial or warrants from the court. There are no checks, and our government is severely out of balance.

Senate and House Republicans are expected to bow to the wishes of a Republican president. But why are the Democrats also doing his bidding?

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE
It's obvious the politicians are cowards, afraid to stand up for their beliefs. They don't want to be branded Un-American -- they want to "Support Our Troops" -- they are not an opposition party. They are sheep.

The attitude of "You're Either With Us Or Against Us" is detrimental to America ... but the politicians think it is the only way to keep the peace with the constituents back home.

I Thought Conservatives Worried About Costs ....

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

The LA Times has an eye-opening opinion piece titled War's stunning price tag:

By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz
LAST WEEK, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Assn., we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq.

Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large reenlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to reenlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt.

We conclude that the economy would have been much stronger if we had invested the money in the United States instead of in Iraq.

Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow. The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said they required a few months to complete their work. Several of our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging the U.S. to await the outcome of the inspections. There were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports.

Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion — enough money to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over.

CLICK TO ENLARGE PICTURE

So what makes these people experts to go throwing around figures like this? OOOoopss!!! I just read the last line:

LINDA BILMES, a former assistant secretary of Commerce, teaches public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. JOSEPH STIGLITZ is a professor at Columbia University. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.

Jack Abramoff -- The Lone Nut Conspiracy

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE
Jack Abramoff is the focus of a bipartisan lobby-reform bill co-sponsored by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman told NPR program DAY TO DAY:

“This is a full disclosure bill. It requires the kind of disclosure that if Abramoff had been forced to do he might well have been indicted in the court of public opinion before he was indicted in a court of law and pled guilty.”

Yet the bill concentrates on the lobbyists, and not the politicians who sold themselves out -- and sometimes cheaply. Politicians like ... Joe Lieberman and John McCain. The politicians protect their own ... and try to deflect the blame on the outsiders.

What The Far Left Thinks ...

CLICK TO ENLARGE PICTURE
Al Franken:

Yes, he hosts one of the most boring and slowest-moving programs in the history of radio, and yeah, he's little more than a mouthpiece for centrist/rightwing Dems of the DLC persuasion. Also, after backing Bush's invasion of Iraq, believing or trusting that it was a robust exercise in humanitarian democratic intervention, Franken now has questions -- not serious ones, mind you, since he still believes that the US attacked Iraq for essentially good reasons. But some of the corruption and cronyism and lack of security concerns for the frontline troops has caused Franken to scratch his head and wonder What To Do Next. Again, Franken has no real idea What To Do Next, but he supports the occupation for as long as the occupation is needed, whenever that might be. In the meantime, Franken finds what Good News he can, and part of his quest has taken him to Iraq several times, most recently during the holiday season.

Tell Me Again -- Why Are We In Iraq?

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

Soldiers, by and large, are tools used to advance the interests of those who own and run the country. They are lied to, conned and conditioned to believe they are fighting for "freedom" when in most cases they are killing, dying and being maimed to enrich domestic elites and their allies/business partners. This is a big hard truth to swallow, which is why a lot of military personnel, and many vets, prefer the standard story. Recently, I caught on radio a reporter just back from Iraq, and he addressed this very issue. Many of the soldiers he spoke to were upset that what was said to them by recruiters and officers did not hold up in Iraq. The con job was cracking. But instead of exploring why this was so, many of these disgruntled soldiers further retreated into a black & white world, where they are on the side of Good and anyone opposing them is Bad. This is understandable on a basic human level -- nobody likes to be lied to or made a chump. But it's al so dishonest and potentially destructive, both to the soldier and the society at large. The Soldier Mantra cited above is an authoritarian appeal and an intellectual and historical dodge. You don't honor the troops by reducing them to stereotypes, however seemingly attractive.

Of Course You Know ... This Means WAR!

Iran is threatening higher oil prices if the UN slaps sanctions on them.

Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions. As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country's position as the world's fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.

"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.

In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a "scientific" conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth".

"... it is no longer credible to maintain that the failures in the Iraqi intelligence were the product of a broken intelligence community."

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE
In his essay, Proof Bush Deceived America, Ray McGovern -- a 27-year veteran of the CIA’s analysis ranks -- reviews a book that blows the lid off of any excuse the current administration has for its conduct invading Iraq, spying on our own people, and other excesses.

James Risen’s State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, may hold bigger secrets than the disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

Risen’s book also confirms the most damning element of the British Cabinet Office memos popularly called the “Downing Street memos;” namely, that “the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.” The result is that it is no longer credible to maintain that the failures in the Iraqi intelligence were the product of a broken intelligence community. The Bush administration deliberately fabricated the case against Iraq, lying to Congress and the American people along the way.

Risen, a senior reporter for The New York Times, reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had an urgent need in the summer of 2002 to get the equivalent of a “second opinion” regarding Bush’s plans for war in Iraq—insight independent of his own telephone conversations with the president and independent of what Blair was hearing from his own foreign office.

During his April 2002 visit to Crawford, Blair had gone out on a limb in pledging to support war on Iraq. The following months saw him getting nervous. So he chose what intelligence parlance calls a “back channel,” and sent the chief of British intelligence, Richard Dearlove, to Washington to sound out his counterpart: the garrulous CIA director George Tenet, who he knew to be very close to the president.

The highly revealing Downing Street memo contained the minutes of Dearlove's briefing of Blair and his top advisers upon his return from Washington on July 23. But what the memo left unanswered was the question of who gave Dearlove the confidence to say this to his prime minister:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.

When the Sunday Times published the minutes of that key briefing on May 1, 2005, it seemed a safe bet that Dearlove’s source was Tenet, and I said so.

Now we have the confirmation. Risen writes that George Tenet was reluctant to receive Dearlove, but acquiesced when the British made clear that Blair considered the back-channel meeting urgent. Tenet then rose to the occasion—with a vengeance. Risen, quoting a former senior CIA official who helped host the British for a session that lasted most of Saturday, July 20, 2002, reports that Tenet and Dearlove had a 90-minute one-on-one conversation, during which Tenet was “very candid.”

Risen adds that by the time of this “intelligence summit,” senior CIA officials had concluded that “the quality of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction didn’t really matter,” since war was inevitable. That perverse attitude certainly prevailed two months later, when the fabricated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD was produced by Tenet’s National Intelligence Council in a successful attempt to deceive Congress into voting for war.

A former CIA official told Risen that after the conversation with Tenet, Richard Dearlove could certainly “figure out what was going on; plus, the MI6 station chief in Washington was in CIA headquarters all the time, with just about complete access to everything.” In any case, we now know that Blair got what he wanted out of the visit—the inside scoop from someone enjoying the complete trust of, and daily access to, President Bush.

The president now says that he does not want his political opposition to dwell on how he lied to Congress and the American people in order to invade a country and kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and more than 2,200 U. S. troops—not to mention the many thousands maimed for life. Perhaps he knows that Risen's book could do as much damage to his administration by calling renewed attention to the Downing Street memos as is likely to be done by the revelations of the secret NSA wiretapping.

Professional Journalism At Work

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE

You wonder why a writer who has enough credentials to be hired by Associated Press would use this phrase: (Taken from the article below about Bush's visit to Germany)

Bush was fulsome in his praise of Merkel as smart, spirited and "plenty capable."

According to The Free dictionary.com/

ful·some (flsm)
adj.
1. Offensively flattering or insincere. See Synonyms at unctuous.
2. Offensive to the taste or sensibilities.
3. Usage Problem Copious or abundant.

Or maybe they said exactly what they meant .... ?????

"Gitmo, You're Doing A Heck-uva Job!"

That's his story and he's stickin' to it! (CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE)

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
Fri Jan 13, 10:56 PM ET

President Bush rejected a suggestion by Germany's new leader that the U.S. close its prison at Guantanamo Bay, saying after a first meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday that the facility is "a necessary part of protecting the American people."

Guantanamo has become a symbol in Europe for what many people see as Bush administration excesses in hunting down and interrogating potential terrorists. At least one German is among about 500 foreign-born men held indefinitely at the prison camp on Cuba's eastern tip.

"So long as the war on terror goes on, and so long as there's a threat, we will inevitably need to hold people that would do ourselves harm," Bush said at a White House press conference with Merkel.

The United States says the detainees are suspected Taliban or al-Qaida operatives or soldiers, but lawyers and rights groups say many were victims of circumstance who are not violent.

Bush was fulsome in his praise of Merkel as smart, spirited and "plenty capable."

"These are people picked up off a battlefield who want to do harm," Bush said, adding that "a lot of folks have been released from Guantanamo."

Of the approximately 760 prisoners brought to Guantanamo since 2002, the military has released 180. It also has transferred 76 to the custody of other countries, such as Australia, Britain, Kuwait, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Only nine have been charged with a crime, and their cases are to go before special military tribunals that many lawyers say lack basic legal protections for defendants.

What's Good for Lincoln is Good for Bush

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

Now, let's find out what a recognized and credentialed authorities have to say about President Lincoln's wartime use of executive power:

After the outbreak of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, claiming emergency powers, suspended habeas corpus, a person’s right to have a judge determine the legality of his imprisonment. Lincoln authorized the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of aiding the rebels.

According to historians David Donald and James Randall, Lincoln relied on arbitrary arrests for political expediency. If Lincoln had exclusively utilized the courts to judge cases of suspected treason, he would have convicted few, since the Constitution sets strict requirements for a treason conviction. Moreover, those who were convicted might become martyrs and in cite more resistance. Therefore, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and allowed the military to conduct arbitrary arrests.
Lincoln gave several more diplomatic justifications for suspending habeas corpus.

First, he formulated a “doctrine of necessity.” Since the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, he must violate it during emergencies to preserve the government. Sometimes we amputate limbs to preserve life; similarly, presidents must occasionally violate the Constitution to save it.

Second, Lincoln offered two constitutional justifications for his actions. He cited the president’s duty to make sure that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed; since disloyal Northerners could prevent Lincoln from “faithfully executing” law, he could suspend their right to habeas corpus. [ii] He then cited the commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution, claiming that, as commander-in-chief in wartime, he had “a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy.”

In his Ex parte Merryman opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney addresses Lincoln’s claims of sweeping executive power. He directly challenges Lincoln’s claim that his duty to faithfully execute the nation’s laws justifies the suspension of habeas corpus. The clause that requires the president to “faithfully execute” the laws, Taney says, does not permit him to “execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military.” [v] Instead, the president’s duty is to assure that no outside force interferes with the government’s execution of the laws. Theref ore, he must help the judicial branch if some outside force threatens the judiciary’s power; he does not have the right to utilize the military to usurp judicial authority.

Taney also challenges Lincoln’s assertion that emergencies require the executive to usurp congressional and judicial authority. Near the end of the opinion, he says that, if the executive branch can, in any situation, overstep other branches, then “the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws.” In Taney’s view, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion of how government should operate under ideal circumstances. Instead, it is a concrete document to which the executive must adhere at all times, including times of emergency. If presidents can abandon the Constitution “upon any pretext or under any circumstances,” the Constitution means nothing. [

Perhaps most importantly, Taney says the framers never intended for the executive to suspend habeas corpus. He offers mounds of evidence to support this contention. First, he cites a major crisis during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency. Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice president, led a conspiracy to seize territory around New Orleans to form a new country. During this time, Jefferson actually wanted to suspend the writ, but wrote that he lacked the authority. Instead, he suggested that Congress exercise its power to suspend habeas corpus.

Second, he writes that the framers, fearing a liberal interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which gives Congress the right to pass any law deemed “necessary and proper” for carrying out its duties, listed several fundamental rights that cannot be violated. It is not a coincidence, Taney says, that the first right list ed is the writ of habeas corpus, which may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion. [viii]

Third, Taney argues that it defies common sense to believe the framers would have trusted the executive with the right to suspend habeas corpus. They had just broken away from a powerful, despotic English monarch. Therefore, they distrusted a powerful executive, especially one who could arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial. As evidence, Taney cites the strict limits Article 2 places on the executive, such as the requirement for congressional approval of treaties with foreign nations and his short term of office. [ix]

Taney persuasively argues that the Constitution expressly denies the executive the right to suspend habeas corpus, even going so far as to say “I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was do difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of Congress.” [x] To support this contention, Taney cites Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. He also cites the fact that Article 1 “is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.” [xi] To further support his case, Taney discusses Article 2 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch. Taney writes that “if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.” [xii] However, Article 2 never gives the president this power.
Taney quotes his predecessors on the Supreme Court to bolster his arguments.

Justice Joseph Story, for example, once wrote that “It would seem, as the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus…that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body.” [xiii] Moreover, he refers to an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall’s opinion says that, if suspending the writ is necessary for public safety, only Congress may do so. Until Congress suspends the writ, the courts must maintain habeas corpus. To capitalize on the high esteem most Americans give Marshall, Taney says “I can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.” [xiv]

Even if Congress had suspended habeas corpus, Taney argues, Merryman should still be released. Cadwalader did not have probable cause to detain Merryman. Taney correctly points out that Cadwalader never produced any witnesses to support his accusations, nor did he bother to specify “the acts which, in the judgment of the military officer, constituted these crimes.” [xvii] Furthermore, even if the suspension of habe as corpus were legal, the military could not refuse to cooperate with the judicial branch. Though the military can arrest private citizens, it must immediately transfer them to civil authorities.

in the “Declaration of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson attacks King George because he “has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.” [xviii] Lincoln, by allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest private citizens and sidestep judicial authority, differed little from George III. Moreover, as Taney points out, during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, when most of the framers were still in government, no one, even during a time of crisis (the Burr conspiracy), believed the president could suspend habeas corpus. Nor did President James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” claim sweeping executive powers during the War of 1812

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to suspend habeas corpus. If the president had the power to suspend habeas corpus, it would be found in Article 2, which deals with the executive branch; it is not.

Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore it?

After Taney issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored, the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial and congressional powers. Lincoln, incensed by Taney’s defense of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest. Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant. First, the private papers of Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Laman (who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the warrant, saying “Afte r due consideration the administration decided upon the arrest of the chief justice.” Second, Taney warned friends that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor of Baltimore. Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge.

Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty. Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested. If Lincoln had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded. How can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with which he disagrees?

If Lincoln decided to suspen d habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty. Furthermore, his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney’s claims. After declaring that the military lacked probable cause in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was a lso dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis.

Perhaps Pres. Bush is relying on his ability to arrest any Supreme Court justices who don't think he has as much power as he is exerting.

Bush Apologists Use Lincoln As Model

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

Whenever the Bush apologists are confronted with one of Pres. Bush's sins, they cry "Clinton Did It Too!"

Now that the national debate has turned to Bush's attempt to become all-powerful, the apologists gladly point out Pres. Lincoln's actions during the Civil War.

In 1942, the United States Supreme Court decided Ex parte Quirin, a case in which prisoners detained for trial by military commission appealed a denial of their motions for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court held that "military tribunals are not courts in the sense of the Judiciary Article [of the Constitution]."

Rather, they are the military's administrative bodies to determine the guilt of declared enemies, and pass judgment.

Ex parte Quirin has since become the foundation of President George W. Bush's claim that the government has the right to hold "enemy combatants"--even Americans--indefinitely, without evidence, charge or trial. I never thought, as a veteran, lawyer, and now a judge, that I would be living through a situation where the issue of homeland security--not to be confused with that new Cabinet department--and civil liberties would once again be in conflict as it was during the Civil War.

During Lincoln's presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered "extra-constitutional measures." But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln's use of power did not constitute abuse since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.

So this is the logic -- It doesn't matter what the president does as long as people somewhere down the line all rank him as one of the great presidents. Ummm.... I notice they don't exactly document the surveys and they don't identify what they call "historians." Is Rush Limbaugh an historian?

A Joke? Poor Taste!

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE
Excerpt from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself—not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch.”—After visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

Issues or Tissues?

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 13, 2006; Page C01

Martha-Ann Alito sniffles and steps out of the hearing room after her husband, Samuel Alito, has been interrogated by Democrats, and the next thing you know, the "Today" show is asking: "DEMOCRATS GONE TOO FAR?"

So here's the new Republican script: The Democrats are bullies.

What are the rules about crying in public? Someone should figure these out, because we're stumped. Crying is seen as wimpy, unless it's seen as a sign of strength. Former congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who memorably broke down upon announcing that she would not seek the Democratic nomination for president in 1988, leading to assumptions that she was too emotional, says that after the incident, she kept a file of all politicians who cried publicly.

"I never knew why it was a big deal that I cried, but not when Margaret Thatcher cried," she says.

Ronald Reagan used to tear up all the time, she points out, and that seemed to be okay. But 1972 presidential candidate Ed Muskie's misty-eyed appearance outside the Manchester Union Leader came to symbolize the decline -- and eventual demise -- of his once-front-running campaign. (Muskie, who died in 1996, later claimed that snow had blown in his eyes.)

Schroeder, who has since discontinued her "crying file," says that it has become "almost mandatory" for male candidates to cry occasionally, as a way to "humanize" themselves. "But if a woman cries, it's 'Oh my god, do we really want her finger on the button?' "

Those who watched Wednesday's session point out that the immediate trigger for Martha-Ann's tears was not Democrats questioning Alito, but Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) coming to his defense.

"Are you really a closet bigot?" Graham asked.

"I'm not any kind of bigot," Alito said. "I'm not."

"Of course you're not," Graham said.

This is a crucial point, says Savannah Guthrie, a Court TV correspondent who's been covering the hearings, because it goes to the origin of tears. It's not perceived cruelty that got to Alito's wife. It's the opposite.

"She's crying because Lindsey Graham showed her some kindness," Guthrie said.

Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government

CLICK TO ENLARGE PICTURE

Excerpt from Capitol Hill Blue
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42

President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.

John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.

Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.

Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and maintain the peace.”

Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”

Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”

The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national emergency.”

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense. Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.

But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power” to impose his will on the people of the United States.

And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Houston Paper Backs Down from Delay

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Excerpt from FACTCHECK.ORG:

Two liberal groups released an ad calling on former House Republican leader Tom DeLay to resign, but Houston TV stations pulled it off the air after a lawyer for DeLay wrote a letter calling the ad "reckless, malicious and false" and threatening to sue.

DeLay's primary complaint is that the ad refers to "one million dollars from Russian tycoons to allegedly influence his vote." In fact, The Washington Post has reported just such an allegation. It quoted the former president of an advocacy group as saying DeLay's former chief of staff told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation.

It is true there's no evidence DeLay received the money personally, but it is also true that DeLay had multiple political connections to the advocacy group, and that his wife received a salary from the group's founder.

We find that DeLay's lawyer mischaracterized what the ad said, and that the ad contains nothing that is strictly false. The worst we can say of the ad is that its ambiguous wording could give casual viewers the impression that DeLay took $1 million directly, which isn't the case.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

You go to war with the armor you have ...

It was revealed last week that forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiners Unit that about 340 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq from torso wounds.....and that 80% of those soldiers would not have died if they had had sufficient body armour....

Another self-investigation

In the wake of last weeks mining accident in West Virginia....The white House has "promised a full investigation"....
Maybe that investigation should start with the Bush administration itself.....

After Pennsyvania's big mining accident in 2002....President Bush completely ignored the fact sheet put out by house Democrats which questioned why he had made so many cuts to mine safety programs....

The Bush administration proposed 7 million dollars in cuts to the Mine Safety and Health Administration.....even though coal mining fatalities had gone up for three years in a row....

Since 2001....the Bush Administration has also become more lenient toward mining companies facing serious safety violations....issuing fewer and smaller fines and collecting less than half the money that violators owed....

Click to Enlarge

CNN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: You know that Jack Cafferty wants to weigh in on this story. And Jack is joining us now live from New York with more.

What do you think, Jack?

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, good afternoon.

Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.

Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

Here's the question. Was it appropriate for the president to order wiretaps on American citizens without obtaining a warrant? E- mail us at caffertyfile@CNN.com or you can go to CNN.com/cafferty file--Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. And they can just do that. Right, Jack?

CAFFERTY: That's correct. Just do it.

BLITZER: They can do it. Just do it like a Nike commercial.

CAFFERTY: Yes.

BLITZER: Jack Cafferty thank you very much

The Press Ain't Free -- It's EXPENSIVE!

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE

Excerpt from American Thinker

A Pentagon contractor (The Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company,) that paid Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers has also been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda work, according to current and former employees.

Internal company financial records show that Lincoln spent about $144,000 on the program from May to September. It is unclear how much of this money, if any, went to the religious scholars, whose identities could not be learned. The amount is a tiny portion of the contracts, worth tens of millions, that Lincoln has received from the military for "information operations," but the effort is especially sensitive.