BOOBGATE AGAIN?
Thanks to everyone who voted on our "Best New Blog" nomination for a Koufax Award. Check out this wonderfully generous website and all the nominees at Wampum
HEY - WHY didn't any reporters in Bush's press conference yesterday, bring up the fact that JACK ABRAMOFF was on Bush's transition team?
We must FILIBUSTER ALITO. Along with Donald Rumsfield, Alito is part of the "Princeton elite" or "Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) which wanted to stifle women and minorities on campus back in the 70's. I have some very interesting news about Rumsfield, who always seems so "aw-shucks" nice and innocuous, doesn't he? Well we all know he owns a multi-million dollar stake in Tamiflu -- the only drug that can combat "bird-flu". So guess why bird flu keeps seeping into the news? There is something going on here that will blow your mind. Stay tuned.
Bush said, in 2002, "Wiretapping requires a court order." Now he says, "The FISA law was written in 1978.
We're having the discussion in 2006. It's a different world." How convenient. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS were made over 2000 years ago. It's a different world, aren't you going to change them? (paraphrased from Randi Rhodes on Air America yesterday.)
Have you noticed more boobs in America lately? And I'm not just talking about our political leaders, though the two seem to go hand-in-hand. What I mean is, the larger the boobs, the more narrow-minded the politicians. (See below for the rest of Boobgate article; I'm interrupting this to post a summary of our position on Iraq and what the NSA spy scandal means to us, US! By the way, I changed the title from BOOBGATE REDUX because it was pretentious, not because "libs" are dumb, as a certain right-winger mentioned in the comment section.
ALERT: JOHN McCAIN THINKS BUSH BROKE THE LAW. (So does Walter Cronkite)
Things to think about: If we had known we were invading Iraq to spread democracy, and for "nation-building", I wonder how many of us would have voted for this? Also -- How many of you believe Bush never met Jack Abramoff?
I received this comment from a right-winger named "StevieWonder" on my blog "Blessed Are the Peacemakers" this Christmas:
"If we lived in a country that limited your right to dissent from our war efforts (I.E. GWB has not chopped off your head for dissenting) I would be grateful for the right to have my democratic voice, as you have the right to yours".
Here is my answer:
Figuratively, many people have had their heads chopped off for dissenting. People who wore "PEACE" t-shirts were arrested in malls. The Dixie Chicks seem to have vanished (Maybe I'm wrong, but where did they go?) Michael Moore has been marginalized and ridiculed. There's a sinister form of blacklisting going on in America right now. If you research it, there are thousands of "swarthy" types (Ann Coulter's term) who are still being held at Guantanamo Bay, who are completely innocent and whose lives have been ruined. "There are also things about this war that no one is telling us; our trusted leader did not do everything in his power to avoid war -- on the contrary, he chose to ignore every spiritual leader, even the Pope, who came to him and beseeched him to stop and really think this through, or at least slow down. There was no imminent danger: we were ON TOP of Sadaam. The whole world was watching him --and there was no IMMINENT DANGER. Bush RUSHED us to war. You say he didn't create more terrorists? It's only natural: if our country were invaded, more and more people would rise up against the invaders in very violent ways. More and more people in Iraq have joined the "resistance" and are committed to hating us -- more than ever before -- across all Muslim territories. Believe me, we would do the same thing if we were invaded -- even with a despot in power. ("He may be an evil despot, but at least he's MY evil despot.") You have to remember that at the time of Sadaam's reign, there was at least a routine and normalcy to daily life that people had been accustomed to: at least they could get food & housing & electricity. Students, even women, attended universities, had parties, and celebrated birthdays in cafes without fear of suicide attacks. And Time Magazine had a report on Christians in Iraq: they were not bothered or interfered with by Sadaam -- and some even owned laundries and corner markets. I actually read that they owned their own liquor stores! And at the time we were hovering over Sadaam while the U.N. inspectors made their rounds -- no one was going to look away for one second. We had Sadaam on his best behavior, after all -- he knew the world was his stage, and at that point, just to look like a good guy -- he might have actually been malleable enough (given enough time) to be willing to work with us. I wrote a book on Stalin and he definitely had an Achilles heel: his ego. There were many ways to get to Saddam - it would have been interesting trying, in a focused way, while the world watched. Or if not him, maybe his cronies. We could have won people in the underground over to our form of democracy -- by attraction not force. Nothing is ever truly won by force (and I mean that figuratively as well -- until a person reaches his own bottom or sees the light, they resist. You never win them over until they come to the decision inside first. Yes you can chain them up, but to win their hearts they have to want to change and be attracted to the light; they have to want it for themselves.) You think what they have now in Iraq is better? Living in constant fear of walking outside, going to school, buying groceries? Religious extremists blowing up Iraqi children as they blow themselves up -- because they are so passionately against the invaders? The Mideast has always been a hotbed, why on earth did Bush have to invade Muslim Holy land -- when the extremists made it known this was their biggest beef with us? American footprints on their holy land bringing capitalism to the Muslim world. Just like we did with the Saudis. I will not be smeared by propagandists like Ann Coulter. I have family in the military (Marine with purple heart) and the American flag flies high outside our house. I love my sons and love all children. We are the most patriotic family I know. This is a heinous, diabolical war, brought on by an unthinking elitist who couldn't even finish his Airforce training. I'd like to know why he doesn't send his own daughters to fight. Or why don't any of the other members of Congress who sold this war to the American people. American parents who have lost their only children in Iraq have a right to speak out against this evil war without being called unpatriotic. By the way, I do not hate Ann Coulter. As a Christian, I am called to hate the sin, but not the sinner. I do not hate anyone. But I will continue to speak out against her tactics. I am praying for her -- and for all of us to have softer hearts. I thank you for your understanding. Peace on Earth. Love, Lydia
(BOOBGATE....continued further down below)
BUSHGATE; OR HOW TO SPY ON EVERYONE AND NEVER LEAVE THE HOUSE Guest Blogged by MYSTERY BLOGGER
Friends, countrymen, lend me your earpieces……
The Bush administration announced a campaign to convince Americans that his warrant-less spying program is legal, and does not violate US laws, all this on the heels of several ongoing investigations into corruption involving high ranking members of both the Bush administration and other top ranking republican figures.
These efforts are designed to convince us that although the facts seem to point to the contrary, that the President has complied with all US laws and no improprieties exist.
But do the facts agree?
On Saturday the Washington Post indicated that Congressional research clearly demonstrated that Mr. Bush had broken US Law when he instituted his Warrantless domestic spying program.
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law…
Carol D. Leonnig
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01
Thursday, the New York Times published similar findings.
A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."
Scott Shane
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18
Yet the Bush administration and its supporters continue to defend illegal actions by the President, elevating Bush to almost kinglike status, ignoring the inherent balance of powers in our democracy and disregarding our own US law.
So why today would the Bush administration launch an all out effort, with an almost totalitarian disdain for oversight, and their typical our way or the highway mentality?
Yesterday the Department of Justice released in response to criticism of the Bush administrations spying program a 42 page document prepared under the direction of longtime Bush ally and appointee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The document, while filled with lengthy rhetoric, does little to demonstrate any legality for the program. On the one hand, the document argues Bush had the authority to launch his domestic spying program based on Congressional authority provided in 2001 following the 911 attacks.
On the other hand, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that if they had asked Congress for approval, they may have rejected the requests; "that was not something we could likely get" Alberto Gonzales – and therefore opted to carry out the operations without Congressional oversight.
This week the debate heated up, however coincidentally after over a year in silence Osama Bin Laden decided to drop us all a note and remind us all what we're fighting for, and subsequently took pressure off the White House and turned America's attention back to the War on Terror.
As the week progressed however attentions shifted back towards the ongoing spy scandal and the ever
increasing possibility that the President has broken the law. Gore, Walter Cronkite and now John McCain believe Bush has broken the law.
Today, US Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) MD, said with regards to the DOJ's 42 page apology for the administrations actions;
Making their argument longer does not make it better
And "Any first year law student can see this argument is specious ".
Later in the day, former Federal Prosecutor Richard Sauber said on Hardball;
"At best it's a weak argument. At worst it's a silly argument"
We are at a crossroads here. The President of the United States has broken US Law, openly and defiantly. The Department of Justice, headed by a long time Bush ally has chosen to defend this crime with legally unfounded official rhetoric.
And now, the Bush Administration is actively out trying to convince Americans that the President now makes the laws, and therefore he cannot break them.
A long time ago the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith made a prediction that in the end of times, the US Constitution would literally "dangle by a thread.
I cannot attest as to his prophetic capabilities however we can certainly see the relevance of this saying today, as we are faced with the ultimate threat to our democratic way of governing ourselves. Do we allow ourselves to be fostered under the wings of a benevolent monarch whose only concerns are purportedly to keep us all safe from terrorists? (forget natural disasters, crime, poverty, etc, terrorists are all we have to fear)
Or should we be more concerned as to letting Bin Laden win by turning America into exactly what he said he would force us to turn it into, a paranoid totalitarian, Orwellian like police state where the cure is far worse than the disease?
And while we make up our minds which poison will kill us first, our Constitution is precariously dangling by a thread.
BOOBGATE....continued:
... As the fixation with cartoon-porn blondes such as Anna Nicole Smith et al. has proliferated, so have the number of conservatives in Washington. Could it be a plot to distract us? In the case of Coulter, it's her short skirt and "traditional values" that seem to give her that slutty attitude.
How do you speak to an enemy? Coulter writes: "You must outrage the enemy. If the liberal you're arguing with doesn't become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you're not doing it right. … Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope, because, as we know, their evil is incalculable. … Nothing too extreme can be said about liberals, because it's all true. – Talk, pg. 10
Ann Coulter ridicules Liberals for hurling insults and being unable to argue back intelligently with equal venom. She accuses them of stammering and calling her names. But I submit that this is a normal person's reaction when confronted with her insanity. Reasonable people stammer! But I know a better way: turn the other cheek and let her slap that one. Before trying that technique, I want to muck around in the dirt a little first. Here is a fantasy conversation:
Ann: Liberals are traitors and the spawn of Satan.
Me: That's a little hostile. Are those claws on your reptile or are you just happy to see me?
Ann: Oh how I hate them! They should be tortured publicly if they can't get on board.
Me: Well it's kinda hard to get on board once the train's already wrecked.
Ann: Wrecked!? The war is going perfectly! And Sadaam had WMD hidden in his toilet, which you would know if you read my column, you war-hating chicken ass.
Me: Thank you, I was hoping my ass was as small as a chicken's.
Ann: You just want to tax and spend, tax and spend…
Me: No, I just want you and Delay to pay for this war. By the way, what do you have against helping the poor?
Ann: The poor are swarthy and they don't wear Izod; they're not preppy! They can't read and they take up too much space and they don't bathe!
Me; Well they could if they had bathtubs.
Ann: But they're swarthy.
Me: That's just caked-on dirt, remember?
Ann: You and your liberal scum are against the war, which means that you long to see our troops blown up!
Me: No, I'm against the war because I want our troops alive. By the way, according to Websters "liberal" means 'generous, open-hearted, bounteous."
Ann: Swarthy types belong in coal mines. The poor have no work ethic; they should get jobs.
Me: They would if Bush starts actually creating some (for the people who already live here.)
Ann: How dare you! Job growth has been climbing steadily under this President.
Me: I wasn't talking about Haliburton. Hey, I have an idea -- let them work for you!
Ann: No they'll steal my china. They just want to suck me dry.
Me: It looks like that's already happened.
Ann: You're obviously a moron with no education.
Me: I have a Bachelor of Science degree, but thank you. Guess I'm lucky to be a be a moron with no education as opposed to a moron with the best education money can buy. :D