Very smart idea, not only to see the candidates' allocation of time, but also to see the moderator's talk time in comparison.
The only person who spoke more than Wolf was Clinton and Obama. Wolf just edged Edwards by a whisker. It's clear who the media sees as the people to take seriously.
Everyone says Biden did well, but he has less time to make a mistake than most. Maybe that's a secret Biden should employ more often.
It's not as bad as it sounds. This is a neat promo doohickey from the upcoming Golden Compass movie. It's fun!
Go find your own! Check out the movie site. It's going to be coo-ul!
Here's the final version of the last video I released. All better!
At the Huffington Post:
In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unphased, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."At Fox News:
Crow and "An Inconvenient Truth" producer David walked over to the presidential adviser's table, where David suggested that Rove "take a new look at global warming." David said Rove was rude with her, but witnesses say David was very aggressive.At CNN:
Rove said David came over to insult him and succeeded.
Crow tried to calm things down but was instead drawn into the debate with Rove, telling him, "You work for me."
Rove responded, "No. I work for the American people."
Writing about the encounter on The Huffington Post Web log, the Hollywood mavens gave a colorful recount of the discussion.
Click here to read The Huffington Post blog entry.
"In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, 'Don't touch me.' How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?" they wrote.
The two also weren't impressed by Rove's apparent argument that the United States would lose it's competitive edge by acting unilaterally.
"I am floored by what I just experienced with Karl Rove," David said later. "I went over to him and said, I urge you to take a new look at global warming. He went zero to 100 with me. ... I've never had anyone be so rude."Reliable Source:
Rove said: "She came over to insult me and she succeeded."
As the debate intensified, Crow tried to calm things down but was drawn into the debate with Rove instead.
"You work for me," she told Rove, according to the Post column "The Reliable Source."
"No," was his response. "I work for the American people."
Heather Lylis, a spokeswoman for Crow and David's global warming tour, said Sunday that Crow's response for Rove was: "Yes, and I'm an American citizen."
"I am floored by what I just experienced with Karl Rove," David reports. "I went over to him and said, 'I urge you to take a new look at global warming.' He went zero to 100 with me. . . . I've never had anyone be so rude."I just found it interesting who would tell the whole story, and who wouldn't.
Rove's version: "She came over to insult me and she succeeded."
Things got so hot that Crow stepped in to defuse the situation and then got into it with Rove herself. "You work for me," she told the presidential adviser, according to singed bystanders. "No," was his response. "I work for the American people."
News of the dust-up filtered quickly through the room. Some witnesses said David was very aggressive with Rove; a shaken Crow later said that Rove was "combative and unresponsive."
UPDATE: I've pulled this for a couple of reasons. I will repost it next Thursday.
Yep, done by little old Bolo. I don't get into it much here, but I'm a rabid debunker of 9/11 conspiracy myths online, and I've finally gotten a setup to make YouTube videos with. So here's the first short I did. I expect to do one of these a week, and eventually the expected Video Response, when and if I ever get a camera.
So anyway, click and enjoy.
UPDATE: Hmm. The YouTube isn't working. Well, anyway, here's the Google Video link:
2nd UPDATE: YouTube is done hiccuping.
Wow!
I made my avatar and learned to walk and fly, Wow!
I went to Help Island, played games, got some free stuff, learned to dance, got a bike, Wow!
I transported to the Main area, Wow!
I walked around, and walked around, and flew, and ran into red barriers, and looked at stores and casinos, and couldn't find anyone in place after place.
Bleh.
Maybe if I find some people, it will be more fun.
I'll post snapshots later.
As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.Pelosi's press release reads like it is a response to the comments made by the White House:
Q Dana, the Speaker of the House is traveling to Syria next week. Wondering what the White House's view on that is.So at this point, the White House doesn't know if the State Department talked to the Pelosi group, but in general, they say, they discourage people from going. It sends a bad message. It only gives President Assad a photo opportunity.
MS. PERINO: Well, as you know, we do not encourage -- in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria. This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon, and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders. And so we don't think it's productive to go to Syria and try to -- well, I don't know what she's trying to accomplish. I don't believe that anyone in the administration has spoken to her about it. But in general we do discourage such trips.
Q So specifically on this one -- this will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to go to Syria since the Hariri assassination, even before that, and apparently she's going to meet with President Assad. Would you have a specific message to the Speaker of the House about meeting with President Assad at a time when the administration has even withdrawn our ambassador from Damascus?
MS. PERINO: Well, again, I don't know if anyone has spoken to the Speaker. I do think that, as a general rule -- and this would go for Speaker of the House Pelosi and this apparent trip that she is going to be taking -- that we don't think it's a good idea. We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends, and the message that it sends to our allies. I'm not sure what the hopes are to -- what she's hoping to accomplish there. I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from, but we do think that's a really bad idea.
...Q Dana, normally when a congressional leader goes on a trip, no matter what party they're in, they consult with the State Department. Were there any consultations between her and --
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I just learned about this trip right before I came out here. We'll check. Our initial check was that nobody was aware of any discussions, but we'll confirm and let you know.
Q Do you know, did anyone from the White House try to dissuade her from going on this trip?
MS. PERINO: As far as I know, we just found about it. I just found about it.
QUESTION: On Syria.I include the last part to show just exactly what a big deal the Speaker in Damascus is. The last high ranking official to go to Damascus was actually Secretary Powell , who was there in 2003. But since then, the Bush Administration has not been too happy about anybody meeting with Syria.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.
QUESTION: Nancy Pelosi is visiting Syria. The White House criticized her decision to go. I was wondering what you think of this. And it's my understanding that the Bush Administration tried to dissuade her from visiting Syria at this time, didn't think it would be appropriate.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: Can you speak to that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've -- you know, our message both to Republicans and Democrats alike who either have visited Syria in this recent period or intend to, as Speaker Pelosi does, has been consistent, it's been the same. In our view, it's not the right time to have those sort of high-profile visitors to Syria mostly for the simple fact that the Syrians, despite a number of different pleas and approaches from the United States as well as other countries, have refused to change their behavior vis-à-vis support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, for their support for -- their unhelpful stance with respect to Lebanon. And we don't think it would be appropriate for high-level visitors, even those from the Congress, to pay a visit to Syria right now.
A typical Syrian MO on this is to use these visits to tell the rest of the world and say, "Look, there's nothing wrong. We're having all these visitors come to Syria, coming to Damascus, there's no problem with our behavior," and they point to the visits as proof that there is no problem with their behavior and that they are not, in fact, isolated. So that's the simple reason why we have encouraged others as well as Speaker Pelosi not to travel.
That said, congressmen and representatives are going to make their own decisions about where they travel. And in this case, they made the decision to go forward. We are going to provide all the support that might normally be expected to be provided to a member of Congress traveling to a foreign country. We provided a briefing for Speaker Pelosi's staff and those traveling with her. So that's about -- that's really where we stand right now.
QUESTION: Will anyone from State be accompanying Speaker Pelosi?
MR. MCCORMACK: No.
QUESTION: Sometimes, you send along a little help (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: A little help --
(Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge. Of course, other people on the ground are ready to assist the congressional delegation in setting up meetings and even attending those meetings if that's what the congressional delegation wants.
QUESTION: But Ellen Sauerbrey was there and --
MR. MCCORMACK: A very specific mission dealing with the humanitarian issue of Iraqi refugees and she went in -- talked to somebody at her level, her counterpart on a very limited scope mission.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just to sort of -- has there been a presidential or vice presidential visit to Syria?
MR. MCCORMACK: To Syria? When?
QUESTION: Has there been?
MR. MCCORMACK: Ever?
QUESTION: Ever.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm going to look over here. George. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Jimmy Carter met with President Asad, I think in Geneva. So did --
QUESTION: So did Clinton.
MR. MCCORMACK: In Geneva. And Secretary [Madeline] Albright, I know, visited there for the funeral and then --
QUESTION: [Warren] Christopher --
QUESTION: Christopher went a couple of times.
MR. MCCORMACK: [James] Baker's been there numerous times.
QUESTION: Even Sean McCormack, I think might have been to Damascus once or twice. Is that true?
MR. MCCORMACK: I made one trip there, yeah. Not that that's important. (Laughter.)
Mr. Specter, who visited Syria despite loud objections from the Bush administration, did not say what conditions Mr. Assad gave for restarting talks with the Israelis. Syrian officials were not available for comment.And the day after Pelosi's visit, Darrell Issa would meet with Assad as well.
Mr. Specter's visit came on the heels of trips to Damascus by Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
A bipartisan panel on Iraq recommended earlier this month that the United States engage Syria, Iraq's neighbor, toward returning stability to Iraq.
The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, which the United States deems terrorist organizations. President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.
...Mr. Specter said before he left that he and other Republicans are concerned that the administration's policies in the Middle East are not working and that other GOP members may follow in his footsteps.
Pelosi has said she will tell Syrian leaders that Israel will talk peace with them only if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants. She has said she will also talk to the Syrians about Iraq, their role in neighboring Lebanon and their support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah militants.On April 1st, she met with Israel's acting president Dalia Itzik, who defended the idea of Pelosi going to Syria:
"Your expected visit to Damascus has naturally touched off a political debate in your country, and of course, here," Itzik said in televised remarks.On April 4, Pelosi flew into Damascus. An Australian network filed this report, before the Speaker had met with Assad:
"I believe in your worthy intentions. Perhaps a step, seen as unpopular at this stage ... will clarify to the Syrian people and leadership they must abandon the axis of evil (and) stop supporting terrorism and giving shelter to (terrorist) headquarters," said Itzik, a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's centrist Kadima party.
...Pelosi, who met Olmert earlier in the day, held aloft during her dinner speech in parliament replicas of the dog-tags of the three captive [Israeli] soldiers.
"They (the dog-tags) are in my office, I carry them with me today, with the promise that we must never rest until they are all safely at home. And yes, I will mention this to the president of Syria," said Pelosi, the top House Democrat.
KIM LANDERS: But should the Democrats be dabbling in US foreign policy?Professor Lieber appears to have not been paying attention to Nancy Pelosi. Every indication from her was a smart, tough message. I mean, she had replicas of the Israeli soldiers' dogtags around her neck.
Charles Kupchan is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
CHARLES KUPCHAN: The Democrats are making an assault on President Bush's monopoly over foreign policy in the United States, both through legislation, on getting troops out of Iraq, and now also conducting their own independent diplomacy by heading to the Middle East and meeting not just with the Syrians, but a host of other countries.
KIM LANDERS: He says Nancy Pelosi is picking up on the recommendations of the independent Iraq Study Group, which recommended engaging with Iraq's neighbours, including Syria.
CHARLES KUPCHAN: If we could find some way of having a working relationship with the Syrians, that would help us in Iraq, particularly on Anbar province, which is where the al-Qaeda network is still alive and well, and that's an area that's very close to the Syrian border.
KIM LANDERS: But Robert Lieber, who's a Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, has doubts about the merits of the senior Democrat's trip.
ROBERT LIEBER: There are real grounds for concern about the appropriateness of this, given the role that Syria has played and the fact that any number of political actors and sometimes government officials have had their pocket picked, in policy terms, in travelling to Syria to meet with the elder or now younger Assad.
It's a dicey game.
KIM LANDERS: By asserting themselves on the foreign policy stage, are the Democrats showing too much ambition?
ROBERT LIEBER: Possibly, yes.
I think there is a very important piece of information we don't know. We don't know what Nancy Pelosi is going to say to the Syrians.
If she delivers a smart, tough message, which I would think some of the key figures in Democratic foreign policy making would want her to do, that's one thing. If on the other hand she delivers something that is fatuous or which seems overly indulgent to the Syrians, or inclined to take Bashar Assad at his word, then I think the impact of the visit will be counterproductive and even destructive in policy terms.
ELEANOR HALL: Professor Robert Lieber speaking to Kim Landers in Washington.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.But even in the quotation of this vital first chapter at Wikipedia, a key paragraph is snipped loose. It's a single sentence, but it changes the entire character of the message. Here it is:
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.At once, the thrust of the book pulls back from the Orwellian mold into which it is usually cast, even in the blurb on the back cover. "A fascinating and controversial look at how governments and corporations control how we think and act"? Two added words would make the description more accurate: "seek to." Governments and corporations seek to control how we think and act, and they can be largely successful.
Powered by ScribeFire.
And is the presentation ever splashy:
The secret of the construction of the pyramid of Khufu in Egypt has always held people in fascination. Numerous theories have been put forward but none has yetstood up to analysis.
Eight years ago, the architect Jean-Pierre Houdin had a flash of intuition and developed a revolutionary theory. Considering Khufu' monumental undertaking as the first industrial construction project in history, he turned to Dassault Systèmes technology to test his hypotheses and feed his thought processes. So it was that he joined the 'Passion for Innovation' programme.
Having demonstrated the validity of the theory with the aid of their scientific 3D solutions, Dassault Systèmes invite you to enjoy an extraordinary journey through time and space. Relive the Great Pyramid construction project in real-time 3D!
Bernard Herrman is the legendary film composer of such films as North by Northwest and Taxi Driver.
Here's the first section:
Click through to find the other sections. It's very well made, and probably hasn't been seen in the States.
The Senate approved a spending measure with a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, setting up a showdown with President George W. Bush, who has vowed to veto any congressional demands to end the war.Of course he won't. Bush's war on rationality will continue with his second veto ever. The first, you'll recall, continued the federal government's "funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research." And now Bush has this. Fox News will be happy to report the talking point that it's all just posturing to make Bush deny funding for the troops. Well, the bottom line is, he will. Supporting the troops is less important to this president than ending a failed policy. He screwed up and he can't admit it.
The $122 billion emergency spending legislation funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides money for domestic needs such as relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina.
The proposal calls for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin 120 days after final passage of the measure, with a goal of having most forces withdrawn by March 31, 2008. The Senate, during debate on the war-funding measure March 27, voted 50-48 to retain the withdrawal timeline. The entire measure was passed today 51-47.
Democrats have been ratcheting up pressure on Bush to change strategy in Iraq since winning control of both chambers of Congress in the November election.
``We have given the American people what they want, and now it's up to the president,'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. ``He has a responsibility to sign this bill.''
Powered by ScribeFire.
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who talk openly about their faith?
"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.It doesn't get much more red-letter Jesus than the Sermon on the Mount.
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. This is the purpose of the "surge". No amount of troops is going to fix Iraq; they couldn't if they tried. If Bush wanted to fix Iraq, he'd give them jobs. People who are employed in decent jobs can figure out how to live with their neighbors. More American troops in the Persian Gulf are not going to quell violence in Iraq any more than the ones already there are.
George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. And there may be almost nothing we can do to stop it.
Iran has a single trump card - their nuclear program. I share the doubts that Bush can destroy the whole thing. There will be no repeat of Israel's surgical removal of the nuclear ambitions of Saddam Hussein. But Bush can take out enough of Iran's nuclear facilities to knock them back a few more years in the development of a feasible weapon. That is all he needs to bomb - that is, until Iran makes its move.
And that's what the surge is for. Ostensibly, it's about Iraq. Nobody thinks that Iraq needs more American soldiers. And it doesn't today. But Bush is sending them anyway, because he knows what he's about to do, and Iraq is going to need more soldiers when the Shiite forces sympathetic to Iran erupt in violence.
The first attack in this final war against Iran has already occured. You read about it, I'm sure. The White House excised a number of passages from an op-ed in the New York Times that talked about the history of this administration's secret negotiations with Iran. Any mention of Iran's critical help in forming the Afghan government now in place? Gone. Any word of Bush's constant double-dealing with the Iranians over people you may not have heard of, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Mujaheddin-e Khalq? Blacked out. And any mention of Iran's 2003 offer to put everything on the table, including recognition of Israel? The Times and the two authors of the piece, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, were threatened with criminal prosecution if they were to put words like that into print.
I know about all of this "secret" material, because none of it was secret. Leverett and Mann published their sources, all mainstream media with the exception of a report or two from Leverett's think tank, the Century Foundation. All of the things marked out of this op-ed by the White House are in the public domain. And yet the Bush Administration felt so threatened by this op-ed that they pulled out their little black markers and crossed out any hint of a peace-seeking Iran being played by a cynical America for all it could get.
Why? Because Bush is about to bomb Iran. Any talk of how Iran was making some genuine offers for peace (back before they were spinning any centrifuges) and how Iran was working with the United States to bring stability to the region, all of that is counterproductive. The Bush Administration isn't a slave to reality - it makes reality.
A reality to be ignored: Before 9/11, Iran had built up a large number of contacts among the various Afghan warlords. After 9/11, the Iranians worked those connections above and beyond in cooperation with the United States to stabilize Afghanistan under the interim government. James Dobbins, a participant in that accomplishment, explains:
Two weeks after the fall of Kabul, all the major elements of the Afghan opposition came together at a U.N.-sponsored conference in Bonn. The objective was to create a broadly based successor government to the Taliban. As the U.S. representative at that gathering, I worked both with the Afghan delegations and with the other national representatives who had the greatest influence among them, which is to say the Iranian, Russian and Indian envoys. All these delegations proved helpful. None was more so than the Iranians. On two occasions Iranian representatives made particularly memorable contributions. The original version of the Bonn agreement, drafted by the United Nations and amended by the Afghans who were present, neglected to mention either democracy or the war on terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan government be required to commit to both.
The second was even more decisive. The conference was in its final hours. The German chancellor was due to arrive momentarily for the closing ceremony. Yet we still lacked agreement on the central issue: composition of an interim Afghan government. The Northern Alliance was insisting on 18 of 25 ministerial portfolios, which would have marginalized other opposition groups. From 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. the four key envoys -- those from Washington, Tehran, Moscow and New Delhi -- worked along with the U.N. representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, and our German host to persuade the recalcitrant Northern Alliance delegate to make the necessary compromises.
Two weeks later President Hamid Karzai and his new cabinet were inaugurated in Kabul. The most senior foreign delegation was headed by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who had stopped in Herat on his way in to pick up the one warlord, Ismail Khan, whose attendance and support for the new government was most in doubt. At the Tokyo donors' conference the following month, Iran pledged $500 million in aid to Afghan reconstruction, by far the largest sum from any neighboring state or developing nation.
At one of the meetings, in early January, the United States signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps of the Mujaheddin- e Khalq ...After the camps were bombed, the U.S. military arranged a cease-fire with the group, infuriating the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment of the thousands of MEK troops, began to envision them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
[Richard] Armitage said it was a mistake for the U.S. military to have arranged a cease-fire agreement with the MEK during the war, a decision that alarmed Iran. "We shouldn't have been signing a cease-fire with a foreign terrorist organization," he said.
..."because we can't be sure of the way they'd be treated," referring to the MEK members. He said officials were questioning MEK members to determine who had terrorist connections. "In my understanding, a certain number of those do," he said, adding that they will face charges.
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces..., an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
Any references not linked in this piece are to Washington Post articles available only for a price on the web. They are from Leverett and Mann's citations, and are:
“Iran’s Leader Condemns Saudi Attacks,” The Washington Post, May 15, 2003
“Time to Deal With Iran,” The Washington Post, May 6, 2004
“In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue: Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity,” The Washington Post, June 18, 2006
“U.S. Ready to Resume Talks With Iran, Armitage Says,” The Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2003
“U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising in Iran: Officials Cite Al Qaeda’s Link, Nuclear Program,” The Washington Post, May 25, 2003
Bureaucracy impedes bomb-detection work
The Bush Administration was getting ready to enable another 9/11, plain and simple. They were getting ready to cripple the kind of preventative work that would have caught a similar plot to that uncovered in Britain recently. How the hell did these guys get the reputation that they are tough on national security??
Let us go then, you and I,More, much more, at the link.
Where my leer is sprawled out upon the thigh
Of the lefty chick that waits upon my table;
Let me binge, in certain half-deserted streets,
With friends with pointed sheets
Through restless nights in Internet tirades
And sawed-off guys in chicken-hawk brigades:
Guys that swallow all my tedious arguments
Pusillanimous stray vents
That prompt in sane folk moral indigestion …
Oh, do not ask my meaning!
Let me get on with my preening.
From the wandering hillbilly, I found this article from the Boston Globe. It's a recent report on Specter considering ways to sue the Bush Administration over his signing statements.
Buddy Don quotes this portion:
``Respect for the legislative branch is not shown through [making a] veto," Boardman argued. ``Respect for the legislative branch, when we have a well-crafted bill, the majority of which is constitutional, is shown when the president chooses to construe a particular statement in keeping with the Constitution, as opposed to defeating an entire bill that would serve the nation."I guess I've never heard it put that way before, but it struck me: Bush believes that the Republican-controlled Congress has passed over 750 unconstitutional laws. That is quite a feat for any legislative body, and especially one controlled by the President's own party.
Boardman said the president has the power and responsibility to bypass any statute that conflicts with the Constitution, even in cases ``where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the president has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution."
AMERICAblog
Rush was caught smuggling illegal Viagra into the country! I'm so...sad.
With the bad back, why does he need Viagra?
Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDBI thought I couldn't be shocked by the mendacity of these people anymore. Bush's place in history is now clanging shut around him.
Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" is out this week, and the Washington Post's Barton Gellman says it's full of "jaw-dropping stories" about the Bush administration's war on terror.
Or lack thereof.
We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.
What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
-- Tim Grieve
BBC NEWS: US storm fraudsters paid $1.4bn
Waste and Abuse in Pentagon Budget
Remember the good old days, when Rumsfeld admitted that he couldn't account for 25% of the Pentagon budget? Getting excited over the chump change spent in New Orleans is really the height of hypocrisy for these wastrels.
