Disgusting drug addict Rush Limbaugh sinks lower than ever.
No one could have predicted Rush Limbaugh would
stoop the depths he did on his November 29th show. In Rush's defense, drug addiction is terrible and it's possible he got a new maid and is back on the Oxycontin.
Fire! Ready.... Aim! Just another example of the incompetence of the Bush Regime
In typical George W. Bush fashion, he begins a
disinformation campaign in September of 2002 to
justify a war he
desperatly wanted, and then he invades another nation in that unnecessary preemptive war in March of 2003, and then on
November 30, 2005 he comes up with plan … we hope.
Better late than never, Dubya.
An End to War?
Ted Turner says Iraq 'no better off' after U.S.-led war
The Associated Press - MANHATTAN, Kan.
Media mogul Ted Turner said Monday that Iraq is "no better off" following the U.S.-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Delivering the 141st Landon Lecture at Kansas State University, Turner said the world is at a "critical juncture" and compared the situation to that of a baseball team down two runs in the seventh inning.
The philanthropist and founder of Atlanta-based CNN gave the lecture to a less-than-full auditorium. Earlier this fall, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a similar message of peace to a packed room as he marked 20 years of the reforms he championed.
Turner said the situation in Iraq is serious but not hopeless. He raised concerns about global overpopulation, poverty and hunger.
He also called for nuclear disarmament.
He said the U.S. and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on a "hair trigger." He said if he were in charge _ making it clear he wasn't and never would be _ "we'd be rid of them."
He warned that a nuclear war could "kill everything on the planet" and said it could take place in an afternoon. Turner said he was afraid someone in power could make the mistake to launch a nuclear war, including President Bush, based on his previous decisions.
"You have to question ... the president on a lot of decisions he's made," Turner said. "He might just think launching those weapons would be a good thing to do. ... He thought Iraq was."
Turner said war is an outdated form of diplomacy that has stopped working.
"You would think that we would have learned that in Vietnam," he said.
Turner also said the authority of superpowers of tomorrow will be derived from education, health care, and science and technology. He encouraged the United States to focus it energies on those areas.
"That's what's going to be on top in the future," he said.
Things are becoming increasingly globalized, he said, and if humanity is going to survive, its members are going to have to work together.
"We are going to survive together, or we are going to perish together," he said.
Deborah Davis: The New Rosa Parks?
Deborah Davis said "No!" when Federal Police demanded to see ID.
The Patriot Act will get tested.
Another one bites the dust!
Hey! Duke Cunningham! You just pleaded guilty to accepting bribes and resigned your seat in Congress and disgraced your family and your District. What are you going to do now???? Go to Disneyland?
Nope. He's going to prison!Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
resigned in disgrace today after taking bribes. Like Tom DeLay and others he proclaimed his innocence and decried the witch hunts that were being waged against him. Who's cryin' now, Randy?
A telling section of the AP article:
Cunningham's pleas came amid a series of GOP scandals. Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas had to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted in the CIA leak case. Who's next?
Dems, it's now or never!
Great post with numbers. Do your homework.Get busy!
Time to go.
Bremer says U.S. will leave Iraq if new government asks The Associated Press
Updated: 8:36 p.m. ET May 14, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. administrator of Iraq told regional officials Friday that the United States would leave Iraq if requested to do so by the new Iraqi government — although he thinks such a move is unlikely.
“If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave,” 
L. Paul Bremer told a delegation from Iraq’s Diyala province that American forces would not stay where they were unwelcome.
Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”
The United States plans to keep substantial military forces here after the June 30 handover, prompting critics to question whether Iraqis will gain genuine sovereignty.
American officials have said that the terms of the U.S. military role will ultimately be determined by a status of forces agreement to be signed with the new Iraqi government.
On Thursday, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the new Iraqi government will not have the authority to evict American forces from Iraq, quickly reversing a statement made minutes earlier before a House of Representatives panel.
*****
But were the new government to say it could handle security, “then we would leave,” Powell said.
Now can we impeach?
Ripped off from the incredible
Randi Rhodes.
A Sign of Things to Come
Omen?
Iraq War: We need to talk
Sunday, November 20, 2005
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
Rep. John Murtha, prepare to be Swift-boated. "He is backing the policy positions of Michael Moore ... " said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
It's an idiotic comment from a mere flak about a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But no matter how much hostile fire Murtha
may take over his call for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, he's at least moved the discussion from finger-pointing over why we got into the war to the far more important topic of how we get out of it.
Few options are without merit or risk.
Staying the course relies on the premise that an occupying force can win against an entrenched insurgency. History argues against it. Standing pat also relies on hopes of mitigating the longstanding tribal enmity among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Immediate withdrawal is founded on the premise that Iraqis -- and other nations in the region -- will never accept a government husbanded by the United States. But will democracy somehow spring to life in the vacuum left by America's departure? More likely is a civil war, won by Shiites, with the help of Iran, and the potential of a new, oil-rich fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Also, a U.S. pullout could send a damaging message to the rest of the world about our resolve. But even the hurried House vote Friday should not foreclose this discussion.
Setting a timetable for withdrawal offers Iraqis a double incentive. It gives them a deadline to develop their own security forces and a definitive schedule for the end of the loathed U.S. occupation. But it might also offer insurgents incentive to keep up the fight, and the stage could still be set for civil war.
The urgent task lies in crafting the future, not rewriting the past.
© 1998-2005
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Harry Reid with an upper cut!
Washington, DC – While President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue their ruthless political campaign about the war in Iraq to distract from their failure to lay out a strategy for success, Senate Democrats remain focused on pressing our leaders to provide our troops that plan.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid took to the floor of the United States Senate to call on the president to stop the political attacks and lay out his plan.
“We’re at war. We need a Commander in Chief, not a Campaigner in Chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq,” said Senator Reid. “Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they’ve decided to start up the Rove/Cheney attack machine in an effort to restore their diminishing credibility and raise their sinking poll numbers.”
Democrats will continue to ask the hard questions of this administration. Democrats know that standing with our troops means more than delivering a rhetorical attack, it means providing our troops and their families a strategy with benchmarks by which our progress in Iraq can be measured. Like Senator Hagel said some days ago:
“Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy, nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years….To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.”
Democrats know that together, America can do better.
The full text of Senator Reid’s remarks follow below: "Last night - on the heels of two very bloody days in Iraq where 11 Americans were killed – the President and Vice President shamelessly decided to play politics.
"It was another political ploy from an Administration that is growing more desperate and disconnected. The American people and our brave soldiers deserve better.
"It seems the President and Vice President have decided to treat the war likes it’s a political campaign.
"Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they’ve decided to start up the Rove/Cheney attack machine.
"We’re at war. We need a Commander in Chief, not a Campaigner in Chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq.
"This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelming to send the President this message: it’s time to change course in Iraq.
"Instead of heeding that call, the White House continues to dodge and duck the questions of Americans and to smear their opponents.
"That’s not leadership, and our troops and the American people deserve better.
"Here’s what Senator Hagel – a decorated veteran and a senior Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee – had to say about this Administration’s tactics:
“Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy, nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years….To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.” "Senator Hagel is right. The deceiving, dividing and distorting must end. Of course, this is the same move we’ve seen from Karl Rove and Dick Cheney time and again over the last five years. Whenever their poll numbers sink, they go on the attack.
"This time stakes are too high to let them get away with it. There’s more than poll numbers or votes at stake. The lives of our brave soldiers in Iraq depend on this president coming clean and coming forward with a plan for Iraq.
"President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove must stop the orchestrated attack campaign they launched on Veterans Day. It’s a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war.
"It’s easy to attack, Mr. President. The hard part is leading, coming clean with the American people and giving our troops a strategy for success."
Too bad, Big Dick....
Henry Waxman's Staff kept notes and put together a report detailing
all the lies and misleading statements. They're coming to get you, Dick!
Big Dick!
Cheney is riding the Wrong Wing playbook, now. When they are a vacuum of options and veracity, and morality, the only thing they have left is to try smear. What a Dick!
CHENEY FIGHTS BACKWed Nov 16 2005 18:56:46 ET
Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney
THE VICE PRESIDENT:
"As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.
In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.
And the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.
They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn’t afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.
Those are facts.
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.
We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.From Drudge
We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!
Damn good thing, too! This would embarrass the crap out of Auntie Em.
Not only do these dingbats force fairytales into science class, now they decide to
redefine science.
This gives a new appreciation for the good folk in Dover, Pennsylvania that overwhelming said, "Bull Shit!" to this crap.
Come on, Kansans! Stand up on your hind legs and evolve with the rest of the world. It's your turn to scream, "Bull Shit!"
Robertson: God will strike again!
Jesus loves the little children. But, according to Pat Robertson,
God is kicking our ass!
Robertson and Jerry Falwell suggested that the World Trade Center attack on Sept. 11th was due to God's wrath at the homosexuals in America.
In October 2003, Robertson suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device.
This fundamentalist whack-job, working it in around calling for assassinations of foreign leaders, said New Orleans was devastated by God because of their wild life-styles.
Now, this incredible Christian embarrassment is warning that God may very well turn a blind eye to any cries for help should disaster befall Dover, Pennsylvania.
Dover voters threw out all 8 School Boardmembers that wanted Intelligent Design foolishly taught in their school science classes.
One has to wonder when some good Christian folk are going to stand up and shout, "Jesus Christ, Pat! Shut the fuck up!"
We won't be holding our breath in The Whirlpool.
Does Character Matter?
Alito's 'lil gaf?
Who Needs Rights Anyway?
November 8, 2005
By
Ken Schram SEATTLE - I bet I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking: "What has my government done for me lately?"
Well, I can tell you: You're government has been doing a lot.
It's been diligently checking out what you've been up to at the public library.
It's been peeking over your shoulder at all those Internet sites you visit.
How do I know this?
The FBI.
Yep. The FBI has been very, very busy.
Under the Patriot Act, each year the FBI issues more than 30,000 National Security Letters.
That's 30,000 opportunities for the FBI to have read your e-mail; 30,000 chances that they've checked out your phone records.
30,000 times a year, the FBI is nosing around in the private lives of people like you, me, our kids, our friends or our neighbors.
All an FBI agent's gotta do to get one of those National Security Letters is hit up some FBI supervisor and they are good to go.
Good to go snooping in some student's university records.
Good to go peeking through some electronic keyhole at the private lives of American citizens.
Now, normally, I'd be concerned about all this, but the president told me not to worry about it.
He says giving up our rights will keep us safe from terrorists.
Don't you want to be safe?
I know what you're thinking now.
You're thinking: "How proud I am of my government."
Senate Republicans afraid of balance on Armed Services Radio
On a straight
party line vote (54 - 44) the Republicans in the Senate pushed back an amendment by
Senator Tom Harkin that would have required Armed Forces Radio Network to present political programming in a balanced fashion.
Currently there are ZERO minutes of liberal or progressive programming.
Ed Shultz was supposed to be added to the mix but was nixed at the last minute.
Randi Rhodes is a veteran and great radio personality and kicks Limbaugh's ass wherever they are head to head. She is not offered to our service men and women, but that drug addicted, draft (I've got a pimple on my ass!) dodging Limbaugh is.
Limbaugh is running mouth about the liberals "trying to get my program off the air".
He is a drug addicted, draft (I've got a pimple on my ass!) dogding, liar! Senator Harkin doesn't want Limbaugh off the air, but to put a progressive voice on also.
Rick "Man/Dog Sex" Santorum is between a rock and a hard place over the budget
Hmmmm.... Rock,
Santorum, Hard Place.... is that your idea of a "
threesome", Rick?
Rick's Budget "
hard place".
Ann Coulter is vile
Pablo
We find it hard to believe, but we're joining the defense of a White House hack ...
Anatomy Of Miscommunications Inside The White HouseBY JOSEPH CURL
Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to Scott McClellan when the Bush spokesman asked the two top White House aides in 2003 whether they were involved in the CIA leak case.
Says who? Says McClellan. And you don't even have to read between the lines.
And one other thing: McClellan was very careful in his comments throughout the CIA leak probe. In nearly every case, the spokesman framed reporters' questions around whether Rove or Libby were involved in leaking classified information, rather than just "involved" in the scandal.
The 22-page indictment last week of Libby details the involvement of the vice president's chief of staff and Rove, believed to be the unnamed "Official A" who discussed CIA employee Valerie Plame with columnist Robert Novak. The details—while still unproven in a court of law—show heavy involvement by both Rove and Libby.
Of course, Rove forgot to mention his conversation with Time's Matt Cooper the first time he testified to the grand jury, and Libby plans to deploy the "faulty memory" defense, so it's possible that both simply forgot their deep involvement when they told McClellan they weren't involved.
But a review of McClellan's comments on the matter are illuminating. "Look at what was said -- you can go back and piece all that together," a top Bush official said Monday.
So, let's do it.
The controversy over the press secretary's credibility—which reached a predictable crescendo Monday in a combative daily briefing session—began back in September 2003, when McClellan took the podium to answer the classic Watergate question: what did the president know, and when did he know it?
At the morning gaggle on Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan said "the president knows" his senior adviser Karl Rove was not involved in the leaking of classified information that resulted in the outing of a CIA employee. He called the report "ridiculous."
"I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that," McClellan said later at the televised briefing. "I said it is simply not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove -- " the spokesman said before he was interrupted by a reporter.
Two days later, McClellan said: "As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it."
On Oct. 7, 2003, McClellan was asked why he checked with Rove, Libby and National Security Council official Elliot Abrams "to ask them if they were the leakers."
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," he said.
Three days later, on Oct. 10, McClellan uttered the words that have hung over his head ever since. But there was a notable change in his answer to a reporter's question—the addition of a major caveat.
"Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?"
McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."
"So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?"
"They assured me that they were not involved in this."
Seeking clarity, the reporter asked: "They were not involved in what?"
"The leaking of classified information," McClellan said.
McClellan was no longer speaking "on behalf of the the White House"—he was speaking for himself. Gone were the declaratives "He was not involved" and "they were not involved." McClellan was now telling reporters only what Rove and Libby had told him—in fact, what they had "assured" him.
A week before reporters would lash McClellan—with ABC's Terry Moran saying there has been "a wound to your credibility"—CBS' John Roberts asked the spokesman on Oct. 25 about the "bad information" he received before making his declarations that Rove and Libby weren't involved.
"Our relationship," McClellan said, "is built on trust, and I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I gave and I've talked to you about the assurances that I received on that."
Again, the addition of "assurances" changes the nature of the spokesman's words. He's not saying Rove and Libby were not involved, he's only saying they gave him "assurances" they weren't involved.
When Libby gave those same "assurances" to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor indicted him on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. Presumably, Rove did not give Fitzgerald the same assurances, which is why he has not been indicted—yet.
While McClellan called the two senior aides "good individuals," they lied to him and for two years have left him twisting in the wind, his credibility in tatters. Neither has come to his defense or acknowledged that they misled him.
And neither one will. The result: A good man's credibility, earned over years of dealing honestly with reporters, is all but gone. "I've tried hard to earn that trust and I think I've done my part to maintain that trust," McClellan said Monday.
He has. Rove and Libby haven't.
Joseph Curl is a White House correspondent for The Washington Times
Frist vs Dean? Dean wins!
Democratic leader Harry Reid forced the Senate into a rare closed door session in order to bring light on the despicable doings of the Republican leadership. The Republicans have thwarted and dodged any and all attempts to investigate the abuse of power by their Republican President's administration.
Without the ability to stop the maneuver the Republicans were lamely forced into a name-calling, whiney, bitch session in front of the press.
"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a startling revelation of his inability to lead. "They have no convictions, they have no principles,
they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.
Frist gives his famous Spicy Meatball impression while Republican Senator Rick Santorum daydreams of man-dog sexThis Week With George Stephanopoulos - On the Democratic Agenda:
"...Honesty in government will be one of them; balancing the budget and restoring jobs another; a health care system that benefits everybody a third one. Strong education system to give opportunity to all Americans again....We believe that we ought to have a decent public education system and the president ought to stop taking money away from it...Balance the budget after the most fiscally imprudent Administration in my lifetime, then restore the social safety net for middle class Americans that is being shredded by an Administration who says one thing and does something else...We want ethics legislation and campaign finance reform and health care reform. We will be the party of change, and we're serious about this and Democrats will have to live by these changes just like Republicans. We want fundamental reform in the United States."
Subscribe in a reader
View blog authority
