TGIF Open Thread
Woo-hoo! It's Friday!
Finally.It seemed almost too much to hope for, but the Supreme Court finally called George W. Bush onto the carpet yesterday and asked him the obvious question: What part of "rule of law" do you not understand?
Comments (190) «
Hi Benji.
I've just returned from the last of my GEMS II training. I'm ready to layout the ballot for my counties elections.
On a personal note, my Necee was assaulted and requires surgery on her inner ear. ;(
What the administration argued:
A wartime president has the authority to take all necessary and reasonable actions to protect the nation.
What the Supreme Court said:
Congress did not give President Bush authority to create military tribunals, and failed to provide a valid reason for the new system.
What’s next:
Congressional leadership has pledged to authorize a tribunal to hear Guantanamo cases.
Our responsibly as Democrats:
To make sure congress does not approve any tribunal process that fails to emphasize the rule of law. To make sure full consideration of legal and human rights is the foundation.
Bruno and Esmeralda, have you tried Tracys new Gabby chat?
Posted by TracyJoan on June 30, 2006 at 12:01 AM
{{Jacq}}, lawdy you've been missed. How goes the Space race? From here, it looks better and better all the time. Hugs to you and your beautiful younguns!
Bruno, Esmerelda go here.
http://www.gabbly.com/democrats.org
How about a link to the Gabby Chat. I'm still working on my first cup of coffee. Thx.
dk2, yeah I tried it here, loved that much. I got to chat with FOS before she signed off this morning...way cool!
I went to the Gabbly site and it was LOADED with the foulmouth trolls and Chinese viagra pushers. Thanks, but "no, thanks". It looks like a wonderful chat tool but an admin nightmare. I'm giving it a complete miss. The Wordpress widget made Wordpress crash and I didn't have time to go fix up someone else's broken code before work. (Fixing someone else's broken code is what I do for a living anyway...MOTS LOL)
dk2,
I've just turned on my computer after being gone all week. I will check it out. (what? not chatting on open thread? haha) ;)
{{{Bill}}}
I've been thinking about you! I'd just love to sit on the swing and have some sweet tea & watch the gardens grow with you & Rob.
Z is busy! This campaign is so different from the primary! The big dogs are in on this one. Field Ops (that's me!) starts in July. I'm so stoked!
So Dick 'the dick' Cheney was here in Minneapolis on Monday for a fund raiser. He was here to help (of all people) Michele Bachmann a woman that has been trying to push the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and its equivelent. Talk about family values. He will do anything to win even hurt his own daughter after saying he supports her. Someone should be talking this up in the media. I have written LTE only to be ignored. Any suggestions?
Posted by RedLetter_Rev on June 30, 2006 at 09:58 AM
Have you found a new source of themes for WordPress other than their site?
gotta go...bbl.
suggestions would be great on how to counter the dick thing.
{{{Jacq}},
ANY time you want to come hang and decompress, you have a place here, dear one. It's NOT easy being "on stage and in face" all the time. All you have to do is ring the bell and say, "hurry up and open up, I'm here!" I'm so stoked with you!! Zack couldn't have anyone better working on his behalf.
I like the gabber chat room. Can we be bad there? (snicker)
;)
Rev,
After this election, I will more likely than not need a trip down south! (after Z gets sworn in come Jan., that is)
Bill,
I missed YOUR birthday while I was gone. I hope it was a fun time.
(I did take the carpenter to an Allman Brothers concert on his b.d.)
suggestions would be great on how to counter the dick thing.
Posted by lavndrblue on June 30, 2006 at 10:04 AM
lmao!!!
I better go start unpacking & doing the wash. And the fenced in back yard is waiting for me to go bathin' in it.
Enjoy the morning, everyone!
Jacque, sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope the surgery goes well and that the person that hurt her was caught.
With the rebuke SCOTUS has also superceded Congress' Detainee Treatment Act that passed in 2005. the Hamdan decision also states al Qaeda is not an international enemy. so, SCOTUS has set precedent to make themeselves the ultimate authority on determining who the alleged enemies are.
regardless, SCOTUS determined POTUS does have authorization to detain.
Justice Stevens: "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction." (Geneva Convention's Common Article 3).
Jacque,
I missed the post about Necee. Do give her a hug from Unka Bill.
And you go, babygirl. It's long overdue you had someone in your life to pet you and take you out for a concert! You just holler when you're ready to rest up. Bring Mr Carpenter, too and we'll just set-around, fill up on "swaytay" and watch the garden grow.
Doot! Doot! Dooooot! Lookin' out my back door...
Essy,
How is your Necee doing? I wish her well and hope all else is doing fine in you life! Zack is lucky to have you!
Developing story on RawStory
Senators already moving to nullify Supreme Court
decision over Guantanamo Bay trials... Developing...
You think the Rubber-stamping Republicans are going to stand still and let Bush get his face slapped???? Not if they know what is good for them----look at what Rove did to Joe Wilson for not covering up.
regardless, SCOTUS determined POTUS does have authorization to detain.
Justice Stevens: "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction." (Geneva Convention's Common Article 3).
Posted by Catsup on June 30, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Looks like another one that doesn't read for content. If an appellant does not raise an issue, SCOTUS does not address it. Quite different than "determining" that King George can kidnap civilians in a sovereign nation.
well i think now that this is cleared up bernie is ready for that vice presidential spot on the republican ticket in 08:
June 30,2006 | NEW YORK -- A year and a half after his Homeland Security nomination sank over ethics questions, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik pleaded guilty Friday to charges he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts while he was a top city official.
Kerik pleaded guilty to a pair of misdemeanors in a deal that spared him any jail time. He instead was ordered to pay $221,000 in fines at the 10-minute hearing.
Kerik acknowledged accepting $165,000 worth of renovations on his Bronx apartment from a company attempting to do business with the city -- a New Jersey construction firm with alleged links to the mob. He also admitted failing to report a loan as required by city law.
Good morning, all.
Got back into town late last night from short vacation.
Jacque, sorry to hear about Necee. My heart goes out to you and my strength to her. Know that all will work out. Glad to see that you are still moving in new directions.
I'm getting stoked for the coming election. Had some interesting conversations with people in a very red section of my state during the last week. I think the ground is fertile for new Democratic seeds to grow.
Tourist areas draw folks from all around and give you a better perspective on what's going on around your state and the country.
What's with this new chat room?
Arkansas may not be as backwards, Rednecked as we thought!
In a unanimous decision and sweeping decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court today struck down a regulation that banned lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents.
The decision ends a seven-year legal battle between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Arkansas_high_court_unanimously_rejects_gay_0629.html
I read this on CNN and it just caught my attention that maybe this is a big part of our problem with the people that believe they are following Christ:
"What would cause a Godly woman to do such a thing?" asked neighbor Sharon Everitt, echoing the question that has hung over the rural town since late March. "Christians don't shoot Christians."
I guess that would mean that Christians have carte blanche to hunt down and kill everyone else though. When will their god come and scoop them all up?
Blue,
As far as this heathen is concerned, it won't be quick enough...
Here's an article in the Wash Post about pay raises for fed employees....senate wants to base on job performance....since the senate is also fed employee, will this also apply to them?
A Senate bill that would deny pay raises to federal employees who get poor job evaluations was endorsed by the Bush administration and drew opposition from two unions at a hearing yesterday.
The bill would require that federal employees receive a written evaluation of their job performance each year and would prohibit annual raises or within-grade increases for employees deemed less than successful by their managers.
Welcome back Sandy,
the gabby link is an instant chat type of thing...
Momo --
If the Senate had to abide by performance reviews, they'd be getting checks with negative numbers on 'em
Common Article 3 also requires that detainees "shall in all cases be treated humanely." This provision certainly bans torture and equally certainly bans the forms of interrogation--such as "waterboarding," which simulates the experience of drowning--that the Administration is widely believed to have authorized, under the supposition that the Geneva Conventions do not apply.
As Justice Kennedy stated straightforwardly, yet ominously for the Administration: "By Act of Congress . . . violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel," and "there should be no doubt . . . that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in" the UCMJ.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060630.html
On the 18 November 2005, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA's "waterboarding" technique as follows in an article posted on the ABC News web site:
"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess. 'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch."
On that note, THIS POST from DK must mean that the Chimperor and his rubber stampers are none too keen on following the LAWS.
Perhaps "rule of law" is something that a college dropout might not understand however.
Rally,
Too many syllables at once... of course he won't understand it. Lo, HOW many years later and he's still talking about nookyalar threat? Just thinkin' out loud here... ;-)
Hi everyone,
just a quick fly-by....
Tall Ships Coming to North Carolina
This spectacular maritime festival is bringing an impressive collection of tall ships to Beaufort and Morehead City this summer.
Hope all you "tar heels" can make it!
Bruno,
Sorry I missed your post earlier... it's been a heckuva busy day. The folks at WP have updated their themes list (FINALLY!) and most of the themes actually work.
I DL'd about 15 and found 5 or 6 that got along with my hacks. The NCAK site is pretty much vanilla WP, but the site on my clickable name is so heavily reworked, WP's own mama wouldn't recognize it. (It just worked out that WP is a fine framework for document retrieval ;-))
News flash....the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment to help the NRA and gun makers succeed in business. We don't need trigger locks, that way we can be quicker on the draw.
We need to hunt game with automatic weapons. That will also help keep crime down.
The New York Times leaking about domestic spying...that's garbage. The House of Rep. voting against mandatory trigger locks. That's news !!! Bad news !!!
By AARON C. DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
The Bush administration has been unable to muster even half of the 2,500 National Guardsmen it planned to have on the Mexican border by the end of June.
As of Thursday, the next-to-last day of the month, fewer than 1,000 troops were in place, according to military officials in the four border states of Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.
President Bush's plan called for all 50 states to send troops. But only 10 states _ including the four border states _ have signed commitments.
Some state officials have argued that they cannot free up Guardsmen because of flooding in the East, wildfires in the West or the prospect of hurricanes in the South.
"It's not a combat priority. It is a volunteer mission," said Kristine Munn, spokeswoman for the National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, "so it's a question of balancing the needs of the Border Patrol with the needs of 54 states and territories, and all those balls roll in different directions."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/29/D8II3LHO4.html
What was that you said, Secretary Rumsfeld, about the Iraq War not being a drain on our ability to muster National Guard troops? Yet another lie from this administration has been revealed.
Posted by RedLetter_Rev on June 30, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Thx - I'll go out and look and maybe DL a few for my customers. besides, I can always use the additional setup revenue.
Posted by redneckbluedog on June 30, 2006 at 02:08 PM
I have single friends here that don't want to have to take the time to unlock the gun in an emergency situation. They don't have kids in their house so they don't worry about accidents. I'm kind of in the majority here, I don't believe the gov't should mandate locks either. A responsible gun owner should make certain the guns are not accessible to children....or stupid adults.
Posted by Bruno- on June 30, 2006 at 02:38 PM
NP. The ones I picked (you can find them in the switcher box) seemed to be the least objectionable and best behaved of the 35 pages of themes they offered. These seemed not to barf on AJAX code, like half the plugins and themes seem to. It does get old, reworking other people's bugpackages into something useful. Luckily, I can do javascript, PHP and dotNet in my sleep.
Like who makes up some of those colors? Th'ain't raht... some themes are just plainole weirdlooking.
Best of luck and happy hunting.
Posted by RedLetter_Rev on June 30, 2006 at 03:00 PM
No offense, but I think all your techie talk killed the blog, j/k....OR, it could be that everyone is taking an early start to the fourth.
Does anyone have big plans?
Hi Blue, just thought I'd pop in to wish you a fantastic weekend! Seems to be quiet around here these days.
Hey, Blue,
I think everyone's out making potato salad and getting the ribs ready to slow-cook. At least my better half is :-) Can't rush ribs.
It's pretty slow most everywhere I've been today. Are we the only folks at work? j/k
verk? vat ess dis ting, vork?
slow smoked ribs...hmmmmmm. please pass me a rack and the lipitor bottle.
Will that be with or without aspirin and water back? :-D
Gregg, been meaning to tell you: Greg Palest copies your style. His book: Armed Madhouse which I am 1/2 way thru, is your style. If you havn't read it, DO.
Heya lets!
That's what's gonna be keeping me awake all night. Rob's already into his cooking and I'll start mine when I get home, beginning with gleaning the garden for goodies. There's a load of fresh mustard greens waiting to come in HOYeah!
Howdy, ALL. I'm back from the store.
(I had to buy some scallions, green peppers and other stuff to doctor up Pie Lady's "world famous" tater salad. She is REALLY proud of it, and ships over a boatload every Holiday. It's basically 100 pounds of boiled spuds and a teaspoon of Miracle Whip.
Anyhoo, I usually go to the RIB COMPETITION (I usually vote for the guy from Australia, just because he always travels so far), and then the next day I go to the Hot Air Balloon Races.
Anytime within the next 10 days I will stop by the Taste of Chicago.
Lotsa grub in a short time.
Posted by Kristen on June 30, 2006 at 03:39 PM
Hello back atcha!
Sounds like ribs are the menu of choice for this holiday weekend. We are doing the same.
We will celebrate our independence from jolly ol england and mourn our dependence on Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia.
I will also give a cheer to the ACLU and all of the other historic patriots of this land who without their efforts we would likely be wearing our own version of the Burka.
bahbahahahahahah! I luvvvv Lewis Black:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Lewis-Black-Santorum.wmv
While it may be repugnant, we really do need to celebrate the wisdom of the courts today and cheer wildly for their defense of democracy. This was a wise decision. I'm not saying they are not still a bunch of idiots, but they made a non-partisan decision based on the objective truth.
We should give them high praise for this indeed and express relief that the entire country has not become a tribe of Zom-Bushes.
One more judge and they might go the other way some day. I can't help think that Alito, Thomas and Scalia are not bought and paid for by corporate America. They lack American integrity and, in some cases (Thomas) they lack intelligence. A one branch gov't is not at all what the framers had in mind.
Last in a very insightful series:
President Bush cannot be of service to his country until he looks inward and surrenders to the fact that he is an alcoholic, with all the challenges the disease of alcoholism carries with it. And the millions of citizens who are opposed to Bush's policies must also surrender to the fact that we have an alcoholic president. How else to make sense of his administration without condemning him personally?
Posted by RedLetter_Rev on June 30, 2006 at 03:00 PM
I picked 5 I liked and I've been playing around with colors and images. But you are right, I think who ever picked those colors must have taken the brown acid in spite of the warning.
Gotta tell somebody about what I'm reading in Walter Isaacson's great book "Benjamin Franklin--An American Life" (copyright 2003) and encourage you all to look up this book.
On page 266 of the biography starts the section headed "Social Philosophy". As I understand it, Ben Franklin embraced an amazing mix of liberal, populist, and conservative ideas, early recognizing the value of the middle class (being "distrustful of the elite and the rabble"), an appreciator of social compassion (not necessarily born of any particular religious doctrine), and civic cooperation.
When these factors are combined with his role as a publisher and champion of the press and his natural keen skills of observation that made Franklin a scientist and inventor -- you have all the ingredients that make up Bush Rightwing Repellant.
Polarization between Rightwing Fanatics and the Left makes it understood that the Renegade Bush Rapture Right hates liberal principles and progressive cultural accomplishments. And, lately, it is being mentioned that Bush is destroying the middle class via planned fiscal policies.
However, I believe it is time to acknowledge that the Bush Junta also despises all moderate elements in our politics, society, economy, and spiritual life, despises all science and the media (press amongst them) wherever they aren't under authoritarian/totalitarian dictates, and favors only American Taliban Fundamentalist religious expression (to the detriment of all other religious expression).
The sooner moderates understand they are not on the sidelines watching some political playacting between Right and Left, the better! The reality is that moderates ARE the primary target!
Bushview is anti-everything the great patriot Benjamin Franklin represented!
May we be guided to save this nation by the same great source of knowledge and strength that guided Franklin to create it!
AND HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY JULY 4TH!
P.S. Bush's Annihilation of the Moderates is a continuation of the Culture Wars against Clinton. Because the Clintons are hardly Left or Liberal afterall!
More bad news from Iraq, US Troops accused of killing an Iraqi family:
bruno you still have a few tabs of that brown stuff in the back of the freezer?
You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
~ From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
~ CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
~ Business Week, July 30, 2001
***
So His Chimpiness got shot down by the Supremes today. Of course, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were true to form - disgusting! I am happy that Roberts came to this decision - there may be hope for him after all.
Hi Nora,
You make a lot of sense to me and I think that you are very close to what the real issues that we face are.
I continue to hope that we are witnessing the final throes of puritanical thought in the world. However, we need to be patient and let the events unfold as they will; and, I know that in the end a new age of enlightenment and true love will begin to sweep the planet. The darkness in which this country finds itself at the moment cannot survive for very long.
I also know that the best that we can do as individuals is continue to respond to all the aggression coming at us with great equanimity and I know that in the end humanity will come to see the futility of war and hatred.
Japan announces decision to pullout troops from Iraq crusade
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-06-30 20:52. Media
TOKYO, June 20 (Xinhua) - Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
announced Tuesday at a press conference that Japan has decided to
withdraw the Ground Self-Defense Force troops from Iraq, Kyodo News
reported. Koizumi talked about the plan on Tuesday morning with
leaders of the ruling coalition and opposition parties shortly before
the announcement. He described the Iraq mission as "a chapter has
been finished," a government source was quoted as saying. Japanese
Defense Agency Director General Fukushiro Nukaga issued an order to
withdraw the troops right after the premier left the press conference.
****
One less in the coalition of the "willing" ... more like the coalition of the deluded.
BobVADem:
It's intersting that California was one of the 10 states that committed National Guard troops to the border. Hmmm, I do recall Herr Gropenneggar saying that he was not going to commit any. I wondered when he was going to cave in... I sure would like to see Arnold out. I've never accepted how he got into Sacramento in the first place, and it does not surprise me that he was involved with Kenneth Lay of Enron. I just don't trust Republicans. I'm rooting and voting for Phil Angelides.
My friends are here and we are going out to eat. Have a great evening everyone and BBL to lurk as always.
Did Bush Commit War Crimes?
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-06-30 20:01. Criminal Prosecution
By Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda - a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
****
Put the Chimp, Darth Cheney and Crumsfeld on trial now! That would be a reason to celebrate the 4th.
rjsnj: You've gotten that right. No, I'm not at all surprised at Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. I'm glad that the rest abided by the Constitution, which they should always do. Personally, I don't think that the 3 Justices who sided with Bush belong on the Supreme Court.
rjsnj: You bet! Wow! Wouldn't that be something? I'm just curious who the Justice was who didn't vote? I saw earlier that it was a 5-3 decision.
Personally, I don't think that the 3 Justices who sided with Bush belong on the Supreme Court.
****
We all knew that Alito would be Scalia junior and that Thomas stinks. They are three terrible judges.
With a better court, we could challenge His Chimpiness's use of signing statements. He has gone way beyond the intent of the founders by using a signing statement not as a means of clarification but as nullification.
rjsnj: You bet! Wow! Wouldn't that be something? I'm just curious who the Justice was who didn't vote? I saw earlier that it was a 5-3 decision.
***
I didn't see Ginsburg name ... surprised she would pass this one up. There may have been a reason.
Huh. For some reason my last post did not show. Does anyone know who the Justice was who did not vote on the Hamden vs. Rumsfield case? I saw earlier that it was a 5-3 decision.
i am crossing my fingers and hoping against hope ( wtf does that expression mean anyway? ) that the supremes go 5-4 to force the epa to regulate CO2. that would be a big win for the planet and the world's future generations and would get the coulters, bush's, rush's and the rest of that crowd biting holes right thru their own tongues.
Gee, this system is weird. At first my post didn't show, and then voila! Must be because it's Friday...
Thanks, rjsnj. Yes, I'm surprised that Ginsburg didn't vote on this, either.
Gregg: I hope the Supreme Court will force the EPA to regulate CO2, too. I think we already know who won't - Thomas, Scalia, and Alito... But, if the other 6 do, well there's hope!
The new Presiding Bishop Elect of the Episcopal church was interviewed on NPR yesterday...
Katharine Jefferts Schori: There are only 9 provinces of the 38 that don't ordain women at all. Several of the others are in process to ordain women to all orders of ministry. But the reality is that women are leaders as baptized persons everywhere in the communion, and they always have been.
Diane Rehm: I thought it was interesting to hear that Bishop Desmond Tutu shouted "Whoopee!" when he learned of your selection. He went on to say, "When you think we used to say 'What? A woman doctor?!' 'What? A woman engineer?!' 'What? A woman prime minister?!' And now we have, for the first time, a woman Presiding Bishop Elect of the Episcopal Church.
Click here for more.
Well, my husband just woke up, so I'm out for now. Enjoy the weekend, all!
Gee, this system is weird.
****
Actually, I have noticed that it sometimes takes awhile for your post to appear.
Yep, I sure hope they will decide that CO2 should be regulated by the EPA.
What's with these Rethuglicans anyway? Do you love breathing smog? Even if you are not convinced about global warming, I think you need to be a luddite not to be concerned, can't you sense the pollution in the air? The last week in NJ had me wheezing a couple of times as the air was so stagnant.
cam58, i think alito, scalia, thomas and roberts will all vote against. i think if we are lucky the four moderates will vote for it and it will come down to kennedy. i hope he thinks about his legacy and if he wants to go down as a justice who did something about the fact that the world is melting under our feet or as a right wing zealot who denied reality and a people's need to be served by their government instead of brow beat by it...
Lt. CMDR. Charles Swift speaks out
Swift was on Hardball yesterday talking about the decision that reigns in King George’s power grab on our constitution.
MATTHEWS: Today the United States Supreme Court pushed back hard against President Bush and ruled that his policies regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners went against both U.S. and international law. Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, the Judge Advocate General‘s Corps JAG, was appointed by the military to represent the Gitmo detainee in the case of Hamdan versus Rumsfeld. He had a big win today and he joins us now.
Mr. Swift, let me ask you, what was at stake here in this case decided by the court?
LT. CMDR. CHARLES SWIFT, SALIM AHMED HAMDAN‘S LAWYER: At stake was the rule of law. The president had staked out a position that was contrary both to international law and to our domestic statutes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What the court did was say that even the president has to follow the law. And that if we‘re going to try people, we‘re going to do it under the law, not under an ad hoc system.
Crooks and Liars
Japan announces decision to pullout troops from Iraq crusade
yeah, rjsnj, read this:
`The Japanese defense forces did a really good job when they were in Iraq,'' Bush said. ``They are able to leave because they did such a good job, and they're able to leave because they did such a good job and now the Iraqis are running the province in which the Japanese forces used to be.''
Anybody buying this? I think this will last just until the election is over, and not a minute beyond.
Schwarzenegger Woos Gays -- to a Point
At his first talk before a gay-rights group, California's governor promises to love and respect the constituency, but avoids mentioning same-sex marriage.
In his first appearance before a gay rights group, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday acknowledged that he would continue to disagree with activists on critical issues but pledged to respect them and foster a spirit of "respect, equality and inclusion" in California.
"Whether you are gay or straight, everyone needs someone to love," he told the crowd in Hollywood. "While we may not agree on every issue, we are united in the values of love, understanding and tolerance."
LA Times
Saxby Chambliss: Listen in more please.
In today’s USA Today, Chambliss argues that the controversial NSA call database, which has been secretly logging the phone records of millions of Americans, actually doesn’t go far enough—and that it would work better to have records of every telephone company.
Crooks and Liars
Since he entered politics, the issue of gay marriage has prompted Schwarzenegger to make some verbal missteps. He told Fox News in 2003: "Gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."
Hi Jen,
That's a laugh, that Japan is pulling out, because Iraq is now running the area.
Japan had agreed to go to Iraq on the condition that they would be down in the Southern part where there was no fighting nor risk. You never heard of them being in any kind of danger or anything.
what a load of crap, domingo! schwarzenegger, tolerant? bwahahaha!
I know Pam. I was disgusted that he said they did a good job so they get to go home. what does that say about the rest of the troops???
He wants money, pure and simple.
The title of the fundraiser was "The courage to lead — an evening with the governor" — even though Schwarzenegger opposed the group, the Log Cabin Republicans, on the issue of same-sex marriage. The group supports it; he vetoed a bill last year that would have legalized it in California.
Lighthearted and joking at the event, the governor was clearly comfortable with the crowd. He started off by saying: "I love the Log Cabin Republicans. I love this organization. I love all of you."
Schwarzenegger, who did not mention gay marriage, said he was "proud to be on the same team as all of you."
LA Times
Legality of US Bank Data Searches Probed in Belgium
BRUSSELS - Belgium's government said on Monday it was investigating the legality of counter-terrorism searches by U.S. officials of thousands of private records held by Brussels-based international bank cooperative SWIFT.
Reuters
Email from the GOP chief procurement officer regarding their "base".
Republicans Seek to Revoke NYT Press Credentials
Fascists, plain and simple. Use of the power of government to threaten and punish otherwise legally protected acts.
House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.
The Hill
Feingold Backs Angelelides
Feingold announced today that Phil Angelides, Democratic Candidate for California Governor, is the winner of the fifth “Pick a Progressive Patriot” contest. After a week of online voting, in which thousands of people from the online community participated, Mr. Angelides won the latest contest as he attempts to unseat Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger this fall.
Phil Angelides will receive a $5,000 contribution from the Progressive Patriots Fund. The fund will also contribute smaller amounts to the nine other featured candidates.
This “Pick a Progressive Patriot” contest featured both incumbent governors and challengers from across the country, complementing an ongoing effort by Senator Feingold to highlight and support candidates as we work toward a progressive majority at all levels this fall.
The Progressive Patriots Fund
domingo, what i want to know is how they can get away with this nyt shit when the wsj and latimes both published the same thing?
Domingo wrote: "Fascists, plain and simple. Use of the power of government to threaten and punish otherwise legally protected acts."
After all communist governments never threaten and punish legally protected acts. It's more the quest for power than anything, legitimate or illigimate.
It would wise of those who throw around the words "facist" and "Nazi," to rethink how to use them in a more appropriate manner, if nothing else out of self-interest. In other words If you don't knock this habit of labeling your enemies on the right "fascist," these labels will soon lose any negative connotation they had. That is if they haven't lost it already.
Domingo wrote Posted by angry_idealist
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't "write" any of that. I copied and paste-ed it all.
Thomas was the justivce who did not vote. He recused himself because he had ruled on the case in the appelate court.
Thomas did vote, and in fact, read his opinion from the bench which he hasn't done in 15 years on it.
Roberts recused himself because he had ruled earlier.
Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service. Justice Stevens suffers another unwarranted ad hominim attack from Justice Scalia, who refers to Stevens’ sarcasm.
Because the NY Times got the story and put it out on the wire.
I meant Roberts, too many justices with first names for last names.
Is anyone watching ABC? 20/20 is doing a show about how divided the Country is, and what the causes are.
Ummmm, I have an answer.......
NEWT GINGRICH and GROVER NORQUIST!!
Every Dem they talked to wished for the "good ol' days" where they would fight for their side and have a Bourbon on the rocks at the end of the day. EVERY Pug says something like "we'll agree to compromise as long as the Dems move to the right..."
WEST COASTERS. watch the Snuffleupagus segment if you can.
Bruce Shapiro | A President Rebuked
"The only surviving World War II veteran on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed three decades ago by a president as Republican as W., delivered the plain and airtight message: President Bush violated every standard of the military code, the US Constitution and international law with its order for military tribunals at Guantanamo," writes Bruce Shapiro.
i was watching it but my damn husband changed the channel. so we compromised and we're watching rosewood. {{{DPD}}}
So the Repubs want to condemn the NY Times do they? Well maybe somebody should investgate THEM for providing "Terriss" worldwide with an online al Qaeda training manual!
This is a sample of what the US Government makes available on-line.
If the Government is going to complain about the NYT disclosing information about a program already know to exist, perhaps it ought to look at itself as well.
The below is from a page Teaching Terror WEB site which the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, a part of the United States Military Academy, links to.
Note the "Al Qaeda Training Manual" is available from this WEB Site and may be downloaded.
This seems a lot stupider to me to have been posted (especially by our own government), than the NYT printing the article about tracing financial transactions.
Our "Commander in Chief" is a "Liar and Thief" and our troops have no leadership with any kind of "Personal Responsibility". As resident, he "giggles" about death and torture just like he did while running the death chambers as Governor.
GIs eyed in alleged rape, murders in Iraq
BEIJI, Iraq - A group of American soldiers in an insurgent-riddled town allegedly noticed a young Iraqi woman when on patrol and later returned to rape her, according to U.S. officials Friday. In an apparent cover-up attempt, she and three members of her family then were killed and her body was set on fire.
Posted by jen on June 30, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Hi, {{JEN}}.
The LA Times is OWNED by the Chgo Trib, and the Trib founded the Pug Party.
Rove don't wanna go crapping in his own nest....
Yeah. Explain that away, Rutabaga.
Posted by Domingo on June 30, 2006 at 11:19 PM
I am Al-Rutabaga-Bin-Al-Zuccini.
How do the documents get out, some have asked? Well it's likely more of a function of the function of the Freedom of Information Act and and the agressive pursuit of the act by researchers that that stuff is public
Yeah sure, you get condemnation of the New York Times, "liberal media," and the like. On the other hand there has been consistent criticism from behind the scenes that too much stuff is classfied. Too much information classified, imagine that.
Governor's Office Tracking Political, Anti-War Groups
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office in charge of protecting California against terrorism has been tracking demonstrations staged by political and anti-war groups, a practice that senior law enforcement officials say is an abuse of civil liberties.
Daily reports prepared for the state Office of Homeland Security in recent months contain details on the whereabouts and purpose of a number of political demonstrations throughout California.
Political activities cited in the reports include:
- An animal-rights rally outside a Canadian consulate office in San Francisco to protest the hunting of seals.
- A demonstration in Walnut Creek at which U.S. Congressman George Miller (D-Martinez) and other officials spoke against the war in Iraq.
- A Women's International League for Peace and Freedom gathering at a courthouse in Santa Barbara in support of an anti-war protester - a 56-year-old Salinas woman - facing federal trespassing charges.
- California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer's office on Friday condemned the office's actions, saying they violated the groups' Constitutional right of free speech.
"When people exercise their First Amendment rights to rally, march and protest, they should not have to worry that intelligence officials are watching them or their activities are in any way being painted with the terrorism brush," Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said in an interview.
"That kind of conduct by anti-terrorism intelligence agencies threatens civil liberties, runs counter to our values and violates this office's policy regarding criminal intelligence gathering,'' Dresslar said.
The Times obtained copies of two reports.The homeland security office declined to release others.
State homeland security officials said details about the rallies were reported by SRA International, a company hired to provide counter-terrorism analysis.
LA Times
Division seems to be a reoccuring theme here.
Someone thought could be traced to two politicians. I disagree. I think it is more contigent on mindset. There are many people who tune in to media that isn't the most reliable source, but rather it reaffirms there values. Too many people are afraid to have their opinions change, so they need to have something, whether it be a blog or (god help us!) Rush Limbaugh tell them how weak the other side is and in doing so reaffirm their values. It's the us versus them that has enabled such division viewing it as a zero sum game, a winner take all. One either gets everything they ask for, or nothing at all. It is as if you can't bargain and seek a solution that may not get you everything you want but is at least satisfactory: compromise.
A real life example of failure to compromise that happened not too long ago comes from the Republicans (not all did) that opposed the immigration compromise. Mostly it on the grounds that there that there cannot be any kind of amnesty/ guest-worker program. Instead the sole focus was on enforcement. While an important issue , it cannot be the sole issue. The Republicans had they compromised may not have gotten their super-wall, it may have just been more funding for enforcement-who knows.
This same problem of turning the opponent into a larger than life enemy, seems to occur a lot on this blog. It seems to occur on similar logic patterns as the Republican black and white "with us or against us." There is no one thing that is going to solve the division, but a good way would be to not turn the opponent into the antichrist.
ISRAEL WARNS: FREE SOLDIER OR PRIME MINISTER DIES
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C20867%2C19645805-601%2C00.html
ISRAEL last night threatened to assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh if Hamas militants did not release a captured Israeli soldier unharmed.
The unprecedented warning was delivered to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a letter as Israel debated a deal offered by Hamas to free Corporal Gilad Shalit.
It came as Israeli military officials readied a second invasion force for a huge offensive into Gaza.
Hamas's Gaza-based political leaders, including Mr Haniyeh, had already gone into hiding.
Israel knows how t deal with these hairballs.
Who says pointing out an opponent's faults is "turning him into the antichrist"? Me thinks you got some kind of a problem with folks finding out what Republicans do wrong.
I am Al-Rutabaga-Bin-Al-ZucciniTranslated=a-jerkoff-dun-sullid-yo-nest
.....but a good way would be to not turn the opponent into the antichrist.
Posted by angry_idealist on June 30, 2006 at 11:59 PM
As Bette Davis said in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?"
"But they ARE, Blanch, they ARE!!!"
The Pugs who are RUINING this Country aren't any more Christian than Satan. They DO NOT care about a single thing Christ talked about, and only worship MONEY and POWER.
("Thou Shall NOT Steal, Covet Thy neighbors goods , wife, KILL, bear false witness, etc....)
OH, Keep Holy the Sabbath. Yeah, let's see just how many of those Pugs actually GO TO CHURCH.
Really, is there ANY of the 10 "suggestions" (as applied to Pugs by the Fundies) that this administration hasn't broken?
For clarication, I wasn't intending to imply that pointing out an opponents faults in and of itself was a problem. It's the sort of "smear campaigns" by the media and by politicans (think "un-American) and the refusal to give the time of day to anyone they disagree with.
In case your wondering I've already done some work involving democrats at the grassroots level and will soon be involved on a Democratic candidate.
Where does anyone get the idea that all Republican office holders are fundamentalist Christians? Verey few are. The fundementalist Christians support the Republicans because Republicans tend to vote against abortion and queer marriage and assorted other perversions.
That's what the Pugs do, though. They scream and holler 'Don't call us Nazis", and although the name is different, the tactics are right out of the play book. If they walk like a duck....But nobody can call them on it because the sheep DON'T READ, and the schools are underfunded.
That is part of the tactic behind having "ENGLISH" as the "Official" language. If it's "Official", then foreign languages can't be taught in schools, and we will be ruled by a narrow minded mono-linguistic Theocracy that can't tell you where they they are on a map, let alone figure out the subtleties between the Cabinet, China, and a China Cabinet.
As long as it holds Grandma's Wal-Mart gravy boat it's OK.
Mayor John DeStefano for Connecticut Governor, The Right Choice:
Hyprocrisy, me thinks. You go around doing the same thing; e.g. fascist, then complain when the complain that Republicans call you un-Patriotic or will cut and run in Iraq. I haven't researched this English only issue, but I will say that you can always find a conspiracy if you're looking for one.
Maybe I need to put this in PLAIN ENGLISH, since it doesn't seem to be getting across. Ethics in politics.
Getting back to the original point. While I will be involved in a DEMOCRATIC campaign in the near future , and will make every effort to ensure my democratic candidate wins, I think I have a difference in mindset. Many people on this blog may feel differently, but at the end of the day, even after having worked hard to ensure election, I see no reason why I can't view the Republican candidate as a person versus a villian (which many people on this board seem to do).
Most of responses I have been getting so far are proof that the division is a double-edged sword, that encompasses both Democratic and Republican, and likely even beyond that.
idealist,
yes most of my postings here have clearly been republican villian oriented
but i don't view all republicans as villians
i know republicans i respect
OH! The Hypocracy!!
When President Bush launched his "faith-based initiative" in 2001 to funnel federal money to religious groups, Pat Robertson was skeptical, calling the idea a "Pandora's box" and a "narcotic" that would ensnare religious organizations in government red tape.
Those misgivings notwithstanding, the federal government has become a major source of money for Operation Blessing, Robertson's international charity, under the Bush initiative. In two years, the group's annual revenue from government grants has ballooned from $108,000 to $14.4 million.
Brother, can you spare a few HUNDRED MILLION?
.......But investigative reporter Bill Sizemore of the Virginian Pilot discovered that over a six-month period - except for one medical flight - the planes were used to haul equipment for something called African Development Corporation, a diamond mining operation a long way from Goma. African Development is owned by Pat Robertson.
Did Robertson know about the diversion of the relief planes? According to pilots' records, he actually flew on one plane ferrying equipment to his mines.
(snip)
The miracles add up. In 1997, Christian Broadcast Network, Robertson's 'ministry', took in $164m in donations plus an additional $34m in other income. The tidal wave of tax-deductible cash generated by this daily dose of holiness paid for the cable channel - which was sold in 1997 to Rupert Murdoch, along with the old sitcoms that filled the remaining broadcast hours, for $1.82bn.
Yeah, Pugs and "religion" go hand in hand as long as there is money to be made. Slave labor is the Pug dream, and The Rev Pat has the market cornered on that sector. Also, does this sound too CIA-ish to you? You know, like the Dulles brothers and United Fruit?
I'm just pointing out the FACT that the time of being nice to those clowns who are DESTROYING America is over. If we are even cordial to that small cabal who are shreddinf OUR Constitution they will claim it as acquiesence to their cause.
ENOUGH!! Slam them every time they call a Dem ANYTHING. The Pug reign of incompetence and cronyism HAS GOT TO END!
The Pug party should be "shrunk down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub". (G.N.)
If a Party openly states that "Government is the problem" why would anyone put these clowns in charge of the Government?
ralph reed is not a republican i particularly respect.
i not sure if there's anything he says that i honestly take seriously.
i'm not saying he never says anything remotely intelligent
i'm just saying i won't bet anything of value that he does
DPD, mostly the powerful businesses would want someone who believes that "government is the problem." If you run a corporation do you want government telling you what to do? I don't think so.
The way you put it sounds almost like a resurgence of Reageanism, or more than that. It can be dealt with, but carefully. For instance, say you have a Republican candidate that more or less pledges to "get government off our backs." If the Democratic candidate isn't careful he or she could easily find themselves facing accusations of being a "tax and spend liberal."
But even during the Ray-Gun years, he raised taxes, and the TOP of the list when it comes to spending are Reagan, Bush I, Bush -2.
Clinton balanced the budget, left a SURPLUS, and this alky crack head SPENT A SURPLUS times 4, and we still ain't counting his stupid war into the numbers.
We must all give thanks that George W Bush is the decider and not Al Fricken Gore or John F'n Kerry. If either of those two had won we would all be praying with our butts in the air and our woman folk would be wearing burquas - available in black or baby blue.
The terrorists and their allies the US liberals won a minor but temporary victory with the recent Supreme Court decision. It will be short lived however since the Congress will make legal the millitary tribunals that Bush wanted anyway. And these savage slugs shall be imprisoned forever or killed as well they should be.
But even during the Ray-Gun years, he raised taxes, and the TOP of the list when it comes to spending are Reagan, Bush I, Bush -2.
Clinton balanced the budget, left a SURPLUS, and this alky crack head SPENT A SURPLUS times 4, and we still ain't counting his stupid war into the numbers.
Posted by DPD on July 1, 2006 at 01:28 AM
Reagan pushed through the biggest tax cut ever. Then, foolishly, believing that the Democrat Congress would honor their pledge to cut spending if he would agree to a tax increase Reagan signed on to the tax increase. The Democrats, of course, never followed up on their part of the bargain. Reagan lowered taxes a lot more than he increased them.
The Republican Congress under Clinton balanced the budget - Clinton fought them tooth and nail but eventually signed on to it. The surplus never occured - he had projected surpluses.
You sound like a moonbat, Zuccini.
Billions of dollars have been spent since the early 60's - great think tanks endowed - mass media outlets purchased - and pr firms put into overdrive
all to give you a voice in how things are run.
All you had to do was govern responsibly - keep expenses low - balance the budget - make government a bit more efficient - not do too much harm to the environment - and not kill too many people
and you would have enjoyed majorities to rival FDR's.
Instead - you gave us moonbat economics - moonbat foreign policy - moonbat science - moonbat media - moonbat intelligence - and moonbat leadership
and an obsession with Jane Fonda and hippies and Pam's panties.
in the process every New England and Midwestern Republican - the best of what the GOP and arguably the country has to offer - will likely lose his or her seat.
Well done.
"moonbat" was popularized by de Havilland here. De Havilland coined the word to mean "someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be" and a co-editor, Cronin defined it as "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency".
It was originally used describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians.
Either definition fits Zuccini's posts.
Anyone who thinks "moonbat" applies only to liberals most likely suffers from other misconceptions as well.
Moonbat only applies to liberals regardless of what your bogus sources say. There are three types who post here. You have your moderate moonbats, your regular moonbats and your asshat moonbats. The asshat moonbats dominate this blog and have little tolerance for moonbats and least of all moderate moonbats.
good morning friends. welcome to july 2006!
so the republicans are really excited about how the supreme court ruling on the geneva conventions is gonna help them big time in the november elections...yup they have a real winner there and combined with their great execution of bush's little adventure in iraq, global warming, health care, corruption, the attempt to rape the social security system, the stellar performance with the katrinia disaster and the new parlor game they invented " shoot my face please!" this is gonna be a big season for them. ayup, ayup...
bush helps his party tune up the band for 06....by filling the wind instruments with cow shit.
from salon:
Bush the reckless
The president quietly threatens to gut Social Security again, and the timing could be good for Democrats.
By Joe Conason
Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++
July 1, 2006 | Is George W. Bush trying to save the Democrats from confusion and help them take back Congress? That question arises because he suddenly raised a topic this past week that has been politically taboo for him and his fellow Republicans since last year: the privatization of Social Security.
Strangely enough, the president returned to that sore subject this week for the first time in many months when he addressed the Manhattan Institute in New York. The thrust of Bush's speech concerned the rather dull (and mostly irrelevant) subject of the line-item veto, which he hopes will improve his poor record as a fiscal conservative. ("I would like to be part of the budgetary process," he said, as if he hadn't been in office since January 2001.)
But pretending to be a fiscal conservative invariably means talking about the anticipated future problems of "entitlement programs" such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Speaking before a friendly audience at the conservative think tank, Bush could not resist congratulating himself for his past effort to "reform" the nation's retirement security program, and vowing that he and the Republicans in Congress would finish the job before he leaves office. His remarks on Social Security are worth quoting in full -- if only because he was so politically reckless as to mention his greatest political failure as midterm elections approach.
"As you might recall, I addressed that issue last year, focusing on Social Security reform," said Bush. "I'm not through talking about the issue. I spent some time today in the Oval Office with the United States senators, and they're not through talking about the issue either. It's important for this country [applause] -- I know it's hard politically to address these issues. Sometimes it just seems easier for people to say, we'll deal with it later on. Now is the time for the Congress and the president to work together to reform Medicare and reform Social Security so we can leave behind a solvent balance sheet for our next generation of Americans.
"If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year," he went on. "And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do."...
...Naturally the Republicans aren't eager to discuss their Social Security scheme, which the public rejected so resoundingly last year. They are biding their time. For now they will talk instead about terrorism, flag burning, abortion and gays. And if they maintain or expand their majority in both houses, they will proceed to dismantle the most successful government program in history.
There is only one way to make sure that doesn't happen.
...ahh keep bringing up social security mr. presidunce and the right thing to do for your party is gonna involve one of those sad japanese cermonies that does't include elvis dances....and so good friends we must fight for every seat in the house and senate, every governorship, every dog catcher post from atlantic to pacific and from the gulf of mexico to the canadian border...we have the assholes on the run, now we have to close the deal and make them squeal...as we drop them into the pot of boiling voter sentiment oil they fixed for themselves.
morning ,
Just another lie produced by this administration, to try and take some pressure of the Repugs:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - On the deadline to have 2,500 troops along the Mexican border, the National Guard said Friday that only 483 were in position and working with the U.S. Border Patrol as the Bush administration had directed.
I, for one, am sick to death of Hillary Clinton and the DLC ! What the hell do they think riding that center line is going to accomplish, except to make them look like weak, simple idiots!
Yesterday's Senate debate on flag desecration showed that Democrats are as clueless as ever about who they are and what they should stand for. Case in point, Hillary Clinton's ongoing attempt to rebrand herself as a red state friendly DLC Dem by supporting a bill that would have criminalized flag desecration while still holding on to her liberal bona fides by voting against the Constitutional amendment banning it.
It was eating your patriotism cake and having it too. And many of her cohorts followed suit.
Think Dems carrying the day in 2006 is a slam dunk? Then read Anne Kornblut's flag desecration piece in the Times -- and think again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/is-flag-burning-triangula_b_23988.html
and lastly, before I head out.
Remember this one, peeps, if and when Guiliani starts to run for Pres. This was his closest friend and ally while he was in office. There is picture after picture of the two of them together dining, etc. Birds of a feather fly together, so don't think Guiliani did not know what was going on. Just another Republican slimeball!
Kerik Pleads Guilty for Gifts and a Loan
PamB
IMO Hillary is more concerned about power and position than substance. It’s that, I’m in this for me stuff because I’m a superior person. You know, Nietzsche and his superman theory.
Good morning, all.
so the republicans are really excited about how the supreme court ruling on the geneva conventions is gonna help them big time in the november elections.
Posted by gregg on July 1, 2006 at 07:07 AM
gregg, what? Am I missing something here? I thought the Supreme Court knocked them down. Since when is breaking any law or treaty and getting caught doing it...is good news?
Hillary is returning to her Goldwater roots? They say seniors often do that.
SandyH
Basically all the court did was rule the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) doesn’t apply and the Geneva Convention rules do apply. Kristen post a great cartoon called Banana Republican that summed it up.
As for Hillary. You're probably right on the Goldwater rebirth. Maybe it’s what Carl Jung (Jungian Ppschhology) developed with Sigmund Freud in the concept of the collective unconscious and Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
"Since when is breaking any law or treaty and getting caught doing it...is good news?"
morning all, and sandy (and gregg)
i'd reckon rove will direct the repubs to say that the demos if they make this an issue are soft on terrorists when it comes to giving terrorist "rights." of course these "terrorists" are not charged with any crime, but the "simple public" will perceive that the demos are giving rights to terrorists and bush is once again strong on terrorism. so the supreme court ruling is neither here nor there...it's all perceptions and karl rove is the ultimate magician...reminder he made a vet name kerry look soft on terrorism, made vet murtha look like a cut'n run, and george w bush, the absentee national guard bar stool drunk a great warrior to protect us americans... go figure.
If I remember correctly, McGovern was VERY against the Vietnam occupation and war, yet Hillary continues to defend this Iraqi one.
If Hillary thinks for one second, the Republican base that hates her's and Bill's guts are going to sit still and let them waltz down PA Avenue back into the White House, she is wrong!
Anyone watch that ABC 20/20 show last night, on Polarization of America, where they aired exactly how divided this country is, because of Republican vs. Democrat? They made a comment at the end of the show, to remember this when we enter the Voting Booths this fall, i.e. alluding to the fact that we should vote outside of party lines! Fat chance I will EVER pull a Republican lever again in my life! They have proven over and over they are entirely different in philosophy than I am. They seem to think Democrats have no moral values.
They think attending Church makes up for all of the evil and harm they do all week, to children, elderly, disabled, different races, etc.
Darn, I wish this thing had an edit button. Too early to be typing.
PamB
As a McGovern delegate we were keenly aware the only reason the war ended was because congress cut off funding.
However, we got our butts kicked because as a party, we lost sight of our common goals. We on the left were too demanding and those in the middle and right didn't want to upset the war's money making machine and the rewards they were reaping.
I wonder if there's anything different about our party today?
bruno,
If I could kick some Dem asses today, I would be out there doing it! I am not so enamored of this party, that I do not see it's faults. And if/when Dems get back in control, I shall ride their butts just as hard as I do the Republicans now.
Posted by PamB on July 1, 2006 at 11:12 AM
PamB - I have no doubts about that whatsoever.
it's a quiet 4rth of July weekend at the DNC
hope everyone has something to do to enjoy the holiday
bbq, picnics, pool parties, take in a movie
I'm very dicouraged by the cowardice and timidity of most congressional Democrats. The way they're going, they'll get their butts kicked again in November.
Sure, they'll gain a few seats in the house, and a couple of senate seats. Schumer and Emanuel will declare victory, but the Republicans will still be in control.
If the Democrats could show a little class and attack the Republicans instead of just hunkering down, they could blow the Repubs away in November.
The way things are, they couldn't even take "Duke" Cunninghams old seat.
What a bunch of losers!
US Seen as a Bigger Threat to Peace Than Iran, Worldwide Poll Suggests
· Findings also show fall in support for war on terror
· Decline in America's image 'all to do with Iraq'
by Ewen MacAskill
George Bush's six years in office have so damaged the image of the US that people worldwide see Washington as a bigger threat to world peace than Tehran, according to a global poll.
The Washington-based Pew Research Centre, in a poll of 17,000 people in 15 countries between March and May, found more people concerned about the US presence in Iraq than about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.
The Pew Centre said: "Despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace."
The survey, carried out annually, shows a continued decline in support for the US since 1999. The US image for most of the 20th century has been relatively positive, being regularly identified with democracy, human rights and openness in spite of criticism from the left, which reached a height during the Vietnam war, and a residual suspicion in the Muslim world.
But even in the UK, Washington's closest ally, favourable ratings have slumped from 83% in 1999 to 56% this year. The pattern is similar in France, down from 62% to 39%, Germany 78% to 37%, and Spain 50% to 23%.
In Muslim countries with which the US has traditionally enjoyed a good relationship, such as Turkey - a member of Nato - and Indonesia, there have also been slumps. In Indonesia favourable ratings for the US have dropped from 75% to 30%, and in Turkey from 52% to 12%.
"It's all [because of] Iraq," Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Centre, said. He added that it was a sign of how "dangerous Iraq is to the US image" that, in spite of common cause between the US and Europeans on Iran, there had been no improvement in the American position in Europe.
Mr Doherty said: "Short-term measures do have an effect. The outpouring of US tsunami aid helped in Indonesia and India but that faded quickly, and now we see US aid for Pakistan earthquake victims only helping at the margins." Favourable ratings of the US in India dropped over the year from 71% to 56%.
He said US domestic polling indicated that Americans were well aware of how the country was perceived abroad. The US image has become a political issue, with Republicans saying it doesn't matter as long as the correct policies are being pursued overseas, while Democrats argue that repairing the country's image and relationships will be a priority for the next president in 2009.
The poll provides little comfort for Condoleezza Rice, who has worked hard at improving relations with Europe since becoming Secretary of State last year.
As part of the overall decline in US support, the survey also records a drop in support for the US-led "war on terror", even in countries such as Spain, in spite of the Madrid bombings two years ago by al-Qaida that left 192 dead. Support for the "war on terror" dropped in Spain from 26% last year to 19% this year.
Throughout the period the poll was conducted the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, intensified by hardline comments from its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was repeatedly in the news. Iraq, too, has been in the news on an almost daily basis, with the formation of a new Iraqi government being accompanied by fears of a civil war.
Only in the US and Germany is Iran seen as a greater danger than the US in Iraq. Public opinion in 12 of the other countries - Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and China - cite the US presence in Iraq as being the greater danger. Opinion in Japan was evenly divided.
As well as Iraq and Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also high on the list of issues that present a danger to world peace. Public opinion in about a third of the countries polled put it at the top of their list of threats.
In the UK, the second biggest contributor of troops in Iraq, 60% said the Iraq war had made the world more dangerous. Only 30% said it had made the world safer, and 41% of British people said the US presence in Iraq represented a great danger to world peace, with 34% citing Iran as a big threat.
By contrast, concern about Iran has almost doubled in the US over the past two years. Some 46% of Americans view Mr Ahmadinejad's government as "a great danger" to stability in the Middle East and world peace, up from 26% in 2003. The concern in the US is shared in Germany, where 51% see Iran as a great danger to world peace, against 18% three years ago.
Bomb Blast in Baghdad Kills at Least 66
By KIM GAMEL, AP
BAGHDAD, Iraq (July 1) -- A parked car bomb exploded at a popular outdoor market Saturday in a Shiite slum in Baghdad, killing at least 66 people and wounding dozens, authorities said. It was the bloodiest attack to hit Iraq since the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The blast, which occurred around 10 a.m. when the Sadr City market was packed with shoppers, destroyed the stalls where food and clothes are peddled and sent up a plume of gray smoke. Flames shot out the windows of several scorched cars.
Ambulances rushed to the scene and carried the victims to hospitals, where men cradled crying babies as doctors bandaged them. Rasoul Zaboun, an official from the Imam Ali Hospital in Sadr City, said 66 people were killed and 87 wounded.
Police Col. Hassan Jaloob also said 22 shops and stalls were destroyed, along with 14 vehicles.
Angry residents swarmed around the wreckage, with several young men chanting as they rocked the burned out hulk of the car that apparently held the explosives.
No group claimed responsibility for the attack. But car bombings and suicide attacks against Shiite civilians have often been blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq, which al-Zarqawi led until he was killed in a U.S. airstrike June 7.
Al-Zarqawi's death has not brought a halt to the attacks. At least 631 Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed between June 8 and June 30, according to Associated Press figures. That includes 25 people killed Monday in a bicycle bombing in Baqouba.
Also Saturday, gunmen kidnapped a Sunni female member of parliament in a Shiite area of the capital, officials said.
U.S.: Political Motive Suspected In Iraq Troop-Withdrawal Plan
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. media are reporting that General George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, has drawn up a plan suggesting a significant reduction of forces in that country beginning as soon as three months from now.
The plan would be contingent on the degree of violence in Iraq and the ability of the country's own forces to take over security operations. The report contradicts past statements by U.S. President George W. Bush, who has argued that such a move would embolden Iraqi insurgents. "Despite the sincerity of our motives and the great sacrifice of our troops, we are, at the end of the day, relatively unpopular in Iraq. And we also certainly help the insurgency motivate and recruit its followers." -- O'Hanlon
And on June 22, speaking at the Pentagon, Casey himself said he was opposed to setting a specific timetable for any reduction in U.S. troop strength in Iraq.
"I don't like it. I feel that it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable, and I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that is trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
Casey's Decision
Yet within days, reports were circulating that Casey had drawn up just such a plan. Asked on June 26 about the reports, Bush said troop levels will be determined by what Casey believes he needs to help the Iraqis begin taking responsibility for their own security.
"The New York Times" reported that Casey's plan would eliminate two of the 14 combat brigades in Iraq, and cut three or four more by the end of 2007. A brigade has around 3,500 troops.
"In terms of our troop presence there [in Iraq], that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground," Bush said. "And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory, and that's what we want."
Step Toward Stability
The first report of Casey's plan came on June 25, the day Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented a plan in Baghdad for national reconciliation. It included an outline for government policy, but didn't urge a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, as had been demanded by minority Sunni Arab political leaders.
At this stage of the war, is it acceptable for a U.S. general to lay out plans, however conditional, for withdrawal just as a new government is trying to assert its validity? Yes, says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
O'Hanlon says that although U.S. troops are meant to stabilize Iraq, they're also having a destabilizing effect, because Iraqis see them as occupiers. At the same time, he says, Washington is showing its good intentions by making any withdrawal contingent on the stability of the Iraqi government.
"Despite the sincerity of our motives and the great sacrifice of our troops, we are, at the end of the day, relatively unpopular in Iraq. And we also certainly help the insurgency motivate and recruit its followers," O'Hanlon says.
"So I think it's only responsible to be thinking about how you can reduce [forces], and send messages that you would like to reduce," he adds. "On the other hand, you're also indicating a willingness to stay in place and remain resolved and committed. So it's kind of an inherent contradiction, but that's the reality of this type of mission."
Political, Election Issue
The reports of Casey's force-reduction plan followed a week of debate in Congress over the future of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Members of Bush's Republican Party argued nearly unanimously in favor of Bush's goal of victory.
Democrats offered various counterarguments to that. Many, however, called for a phased withdrawal similar to the plan reportedly outlined by Casey. Republicans responded that Democrats want to abandon the Iraqis.
Polls show the Republicans may lose control of Congress in the November elections. Republicans are vulnerable for a variety of reasons, including the growing unpopularity of the war among American voters.
Question Of History
Could Bush be trying to improve the chances of his fellow Republicans by directing Casey to outline a troop-reduction plan that would begin a month or so before the elections? Not necessarily, O'Hanlon says, because Bush is a second-term president and can't run for a third term.
"Second-term presidents think at least as much about their place in history as they do about congressional midterm elections," O'Hanlon says. "In one sense, historical legacy is the ultimate form of politics -- that a president who begins to sense that his time is limited in the White House wants to be thought of with some of the great leaders of this country's history. And for Mr. Bush, that requires some level of success in Iraq. There's simply no way that he could be seen in historical context as a successful president if this war winds up in failure."
At the same time, O'Hanlon says, if Bush is indeed ready to begin reducing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq for strictly military reasons, he's not unaware that the timing of that decision, and the upcoming congressional elections, would benefit his party.
Timing Is Key
Still, O'Hanlon says, Democrats can feel vindicated that what many of them are thinking is parallel with Casey's own plans. And he says Bush himself would admit that he is not interested in staying indefinitely in Iraq.
But O'Hanlon says there's another way to look at the Bush administration's consideration of reducing troop levels in Iraq: "It's reasonable to say, 'Listen, now that Iraq has a sovereign government in place, we can have a more serious conversation about a strategy for downsizing our presence.' And that's not cynical, that's timed to the reality of this new Iraqi government. Even those of us who might have preferred this kind of conversation to happen sooner -- and might have thought it would bring benefits because it would have reduced the perception of the United States as an occupying power -- we can still see that there is a legitimacy to having this conversation begin now."
O'Hanlon says he believes there have been "a lot of mistakes" in Bush's Iraq policy, but at least now the president is being open-minded about developing a troop-withdrawal strategy.
Gitmo win likely cost Navy lawyer his career
Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift -- the Navy lawyer who beat the president of the United States in a pivotal Supreme Court battle over trying alleged terrorists -- figures he'll probably have to find a new job.
Benji, ref: your 12;23.
Yet they blame the Media because they don't print any "good" news about Iraq! There is not one single thing that could be reported about Iraq that is Good news. If it weren't for bad news there would be no good news at all.
Notice, you haven't seen any more about that wonderful government there, which was unable to fill key positions! Who the hell wants the job of Sec. of Defense in Iraq???
The Republicans and Bush are LOSERS, period!
Notice, you haven't seen any more about that wonderful government there, which was unable to fill key positions! Who the hell wants the job of Sec. of Defense in Iraq???
The Republicans and Bush are LOSERS, period!
Posted by PamB on July 1, 2006 at 01:33 PM
But all the cabinet offices have been filled now - they filled them on the day Bush visited Bagdad. It was in all the papers.
Buit, keep hoping for failure in Iraq - that will get you votes.
Howdy, ALL!
For those who are interested, you can watch the NASA live TV cam of the shuttle launch HERE
Who do you suppose will win the presidency in 2008?
Posted by Rickpat on July 1, 2006 at 02:06 PM
I'm pretty sure it will be John Kerry because he is dynamic, forceful and not in the least bit wishy washy or prone to flip flopping on issues.
And he no longer looks like a Shar-Pei due to his botox injections so I am confident that he is the mand to sweep the nation.
Al-Zarqawi's death has not brought a halt to the attacks. At least 631 Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed between June 8 and June 30, according to Associated Press figures. That includes 25 people killed Monday in a bicycle bombing in Baqouba.
****
I said it wouldn't and there is the proof. This war was never about Zarqawi or WMD or Democracy. The war and the occupation are all about the neocons desire to control Middle East oil.
Report: Abramoff Had FBI Data
By Walter F. Roche Jr.
The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 01 July 2006
The lobbyist improperly got and acted on a secret file about the Marianas, an inspector general says.
Washington - Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff improperly obtained a top-secret FBI document and tried to use the information to aid his clients in the Pacific Island territories, according to a report released Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general.
The lobbyist feared information in the document could be damaging to his clients' interests, the inspector general said, and he used his knowledge of its contents to warn them and to devise a counterattack.
"Abramoff's e-mail records indicate that by late June 2002 he had obtained a copy of the report from an official of the Department of Interior," the report said.
The leak has been referred to the FBI and the Interior Department's inspector general for further investigation.
Abramoff earlier this year pleaded guilty to corruption charges, including conspiracy to bribe public officials and failure to pay taxes. He is cooperating in an investigation that has resulted in guilty pleas from top legislative aides and Abramoff's lobbying partners.
The revelation that Abramoff had obtained the secret document was just one finding in the 41-page report into allegations that he had improperly influenced President Bush's 2002 decision to oust the acting U.S. attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Frederick A. Black.
***
Lovely! So, pray tell how does a lobbyist get his hands on FBI documents? Only with corrupt Republicans in charge could such a thing happen.
For those who are interested, you can watch the NASA live TV cam of the shuttle launch HERE
***
Thx ... I have it up in onw window. The best of luck to the crew!
Reports that President Bush has quietly dismissed or otherwise challenged statutes just after signing them led to obfuscating testimony on Capitol Hill in defense of the president's actions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, at the behest of its chairperson, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), held hearings yesterday concerning the president's controversial use of "signing statements" to express disapproval or exceptions to newly inked statutes.
Proponents of Bush's use of the statements characterized them before the full-committee panel as mere interpretations of the statute being signed into law, or at most as expressions of the president's reservations about the constitutionality of a particular measure. Such is the accepted traditional use of the signing statement, since President James Monroe first wrote one in the early 19th Century.
Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, was the only administration official to testify at the hearing. She suggested the frequency with which Bush included signing statements along with bills he had signed was hardly unusual.
"President Bush's signing statements are indistinguishable from those issued by past presidents," Boardman's written testimony said. "In addition, the number of such statements issued by President Bush is in keeping with the number issued by every president during the past quarter century."
But in fact, Bush's signing statements have far superseded traditional uses, and the number of statutes questioned or overridden have far exceeded those challenged by all past presidents. According to an analysis by the Boston Globe in April, the president's father, in office for four years, challenged 232 statutes with signing statements; Bill Clinton challenged just 140 laws. Prior to the Reagan administration, when some 71 signing statements were used, the legally ambiguous documents were not employed as strategic instruments, according to a research paper by Christopher Kelley, a presidential scholar at Miami University in Oxford.
Over the first five years of his presidency, by contrast, George W. Bush had already used the statements to question, dismiss or contradict more than 750 statutes insofar as they pertain to his presidential powers, the Globe reported.
In many of his signing statements, Bush has gone farther than all but a few examples from previous presidencies by expressing his intention not to comply with major elements of newly signed legislative packages, rather than merely question or take exception to specific provisions of a bill on constitutional grounds.
***
This is why Bush should be impeached - he refuses to follow the law!
Unfortunately, I fear even more Specterism is on the way. Once Arlen gets on a situation it inevitably dies out. Srlen Specter is useless.
US Losing War on Terrorism, Experts Say
By Bob Deans
Cox News Service
Thursday 29 June 2006
Poll finds that more than 8 in 10 respondents blame the Iraq war.
Washington - The United States is losing its fight against terrorism and the Iraq war is the biggest reason why, more than eight of 10 American terrorism and national security experts concluded in a poll released Wednesday.
One participant in the survey, a former CIA official who described himself as a conservative Republican, said the war in Iraq has provided global terrorist groups with a recruiting bonanza, a valuable training ground and a strategic beachhead at the crossroads of the oil-rich Persian Gulf and Turkey, the traditional land bridge linking the Middle East to Europe.
"The war in Iraq broke our back in the war on terror," said the former official, Michael Scheuer, the author of "Imperial Hubris," a popular book highly critical of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts. "It has made everything more difficult and the threat more existential."
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S?
bush and the republicans were wrong.
WHY AREN'T WE REDPLOYING TROOPS
bush and the republicans.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?
bush and the republicans.
WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans.
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX IRAQ?
get rid of bush and the republicans.
WHO'S CUTTING TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY?
bush and the republicans
WHO'S RUNNING UP THE FEDERAL DEFICIT?
bush and the republicans
WHO'S THE "CUT AND RUN" PARTY?
bush and the republicans
WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHY ISN'T THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
bush and the republicans
WHY ARE OUR SOLDIERS DYING IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHY DIDN'T THEY FIND WMD'S IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHY AREN'T WE REPDEPLOYING TROOPS?
bush and the republicans
WHY WASN'T THERE MULTI-LATERAL SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ?
get rid of bush and the republicans
WHEN bush and the republicans INVADED IRAQ DID THEY HAVE A PLAN?
No.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN?
Get rid of bush and the republicans
AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET
WHO'S THE "CUT AND RUN" PARTY?
***
Repugs are cutting from the issues so they can run in 2006 - paraphrasing Carolyn Maloney (D-NY).
Al-Zarqawi's death has not brought a halt to the attacks. At least 631 Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed between June 8 and June 30, according to Associated Press figures. That includes 25 people killed Monday in a bicycle bombing in Baqouba.
****
I said it wouldn't and there is the proof. This war was never about Zarqawi or WMD or Democracy. The war and the occupation are all about the neocons desire to control Middle East oil.
Did I miss something or did some rightwing nutjob write that "Now that Zarqawi is dead, all violence in the Middle East will end."? What are you talking about?
As for neocons desire to control middle east oil, isn't it cheaper just to buy it? Gold is more precious than oil, yet we didn't invade South Africa (which controls most of the world's gold supply) to CONTROL GOLD. When we need it - we buy it.
Starting a war to control oil only drives the price higher. You are rather naive. If the US wanted to control arab oil, it would have invaded Israel and set up a Palestinian state. With no tensions in the middle east, oil would have dropped to $12 a barrel, about 4 bucks more than the cost of producing it.
That's how you control oil.
This current attack on the NYT's is another ploy by the repukes to utterly destroy any free press and guess what else will fall by the wayside if they are successful. Well folks if the bush crime family wins this blog and others like it are toast!
Everyone knows that the NYT's article on the money trail was touted over and over by the idiot in charge himself when he wanted to boast his prowess. It is blatent in its over stated indignation that this is just another bullshit ploy. People need to speak up on this issue, freedom of the press is at stake!
Look what you Democrats have done to New Jersey - the state is completely closed. You call this leadership? The state is destroyed because of your party - and you think you can run a country?
It's laughable.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
