1.20.09 Uniter Not a Divider

2007-10-17T11:54:00.000-04:00

Bush blasts Congress on several fronts
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/bush/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush attacked Congress on Wednesday, ripping the new Democratic leadership for failing to achieve much in their first nine months of power.

President Bush speaks at a White House press conference on Wednesday.

Bush used his opening statement to list areas where he said "Congress has work to do": health care; security; the budget; education; housing; trade; help for military veterans; law enforcement and the judiciary.

He complained about progress on a number of bills before Congress, including children's health insurance, spending plans and internal surveillance legislation, saying Congress has wasted much of the past nine months.

"Now the clock is winding down. In some key areas, Congress is just getting started," Bush said.

"One of Congress' basic duties is to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Yet Congress has not sent me a single appropriations bill," Bush said.

Bush said congressional Democrats are wasting time with proposed legislation calling the actions of Ottoman Turks against Armenians during World War I "genocide."

"With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire," Bush said. "The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. ...
"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day," Bush said.

U.S.-Turkey relations were strained further Wednesday as the Turkish parliament overwhelmingly approved military action against Kurdish separatists based in Iraq. Turkey has massed 60,000 troops along its border with Iraq.

Bush said Wednesday the U.S. is asking the Turkish government for restraint.

"We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interests to send troops into Iraq," he said while acknowledging that some Turkish troops have crossed the border.

On the war on terror, Bush said it was important that Congress act on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that progress can continue to be made against al Qaeda.

"Al Qaeda's still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq. They're dangerous elsewhere. Al Qaeda's not going to go away any time," Bush said. "That's why it's important for us to be listening -- you know, finding out what their intentions are and what are their plans, so we can respond to them."

On children's health care, Bush earlier this month vetoed legislation that would increase spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase. Congressional Democrats are trying to gather enough votes for to override a veto.

It's Bush's 20th press conference this year.

Bush veto for child health bill

2007-10-03T11:30:00.000-04:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7026454.stm

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill to expand a children's health care insurance scheme, after it was passed with a large majority in the Senate.

Mr Bush argues it takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.

The vetoed bill proposed higher tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.

Children's health insurance is set to be a campaign issue in next year's elections, analysts say.

Eighteen Republican senators joined Democrats last week in passing the legislation by a 67-29 vote.
But the House of Representatives, which approved the bill by 265-159, was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

It is only the fourth time Mr Bush has used his veto power in the course of his presidency.

Public support

The State Children's Health Insurance Programme (SCHIP) currently subsidises health care for some 6.6 million people, most of them children.

Mr Bush had said he wanted only a $5bn increase in funding for the scheme.

He argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that was too costly.

His decision to veto the bill is likely to prove unpopular with many people, however, correspondents say.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll suggested that more than seven in 10 Americans supported the $35bn increase proposed in the bill.

Democrats in the House say they will seek to persuade sufficient Republican congressmen to change sides to be able to override Mr Bush's veto.

But House Republican leader Roy Blunt said he was "absolutely confident" that he would be able to prevent that happening.

Many Republicans are likely to feel the pressure of public opinion ahead of congressional elections in November next year.

Zeitgeist: the movie

2007-09-21T00:29:00.000-04:00

Ok, first of all I do not intend for this site to be a crazy conspiratorial blog run by a left wing nut job. I may be left wing but I do not like to think of myself as a "nut job." At least on most days. Second, I was sent this video by friend of mine and finding myself with a bit of free time, I watched it. On the whole, it is quite terrifying. The conclusions the film draws about Christianity are, to a large extent, views I've held for several years now. With any knowledge of the history of the world, the views that the Bible is simply borrowed from many long established religions - most pagan - is easy to see. Approach the next part of the film with caution. I find all the facts very interesting and easy to buy in to. However, I'm sure I could also view a film with exactly the opposite viewpoint and believe that too. I also have done absolutely no research for myself. I simply present this to you to hear your comments on this. Truth? Fiction? Crazy? You decide.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Sorry

2007-09-21T00:00:00.000-04:00

It seems that much like the Iraqi congress I have decided to take some time off lately. I didn't want to be that blog with this kind of post on it but it seems I have. And some new comments have been added (thanks ted) so it seems their is at least someone out there who actually reads this. I am notoriously busy but always find time to rant about this administration and will begin to continue to do so again. Keep commenting all!

1...2...36 Strikes - You're Out!

2007-08-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

Another One Bites the Dust

2007-08-17T21:47:00.000-04:00

In Honor of Karl Rove's Resignation

2007-08-13T22:18:00.001-04:00

Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Ass on the Way Out

2007-08-13T10:30:00.001-04:00

Iowa Straw Poll Results

2007-08-12T11:03:00.000-04:00

This really says nothing since Giuliani and McCain didn't participate for some reason but I feel it should be posted here anyways. Here's the results:

Mitt Romney: 31.5%
Mike Huckabee: 18.1%
Sam Brownback: 15.3%
Tom Tancredo: 13.7%
Ron Paul: 9.1%
Tommy Thompson: 7.3%
Fred Thompson: 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani: 1.3%
Duncan Hunter: 1.2%
John McCain: 1%
John Cox: .1%

HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!

2007-08-11T00:16:00.000-04:00

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/index.html

I think it's important that we all become aware of this. If this concerns you like it should, please let others know about General Lute's comments. THIS IS NOT OKAY!

Also, here is a link to the interview with General Lute on NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12688693. I am concerned that more people are not aware of this current situation. Do not let this slide by you. Take action now!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the "Iraq war czar." It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

"The president's position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."

Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

Logo "Debate" Review

2007-08-09T23:32:00.000-04:00

I don't imagine a lot of people caught the Presidential Forum on Logo. I don't have the channel either but was able to get it online as a live feed. I encourage you to pull it up because it was very well done. Though I was under the impression that it was a debate and it indeed was not. It really was just a talk show featuring most of the Democratic candidates and only questions regarding issues important to LGBT community. And I think I liked it. I would be interested in seeing more of this type of program with a focus on a certain issue. And shame on the Republicans for not managing to show up here and state their views. But I imagine they think all gays have AIDS and AIDS apparently can be spread through handshakes so I guess the logic works out.

Clearly their were two types of candidates at this forum - those that have potential to be elected and those that don't. The former are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson, the latter are Kucinich and Gravel. The difference lies in semantics. Is it marriage or civil union? Does it matter? Aren't both better than know?

And all the legitimate candidates were on pins and needles at this thing because one wrong move could be used against them severely in the future. The worst played moment came in Richardson's answer to, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I never even knew what his answer was. I don't think he answered a single question for the entire twenty minutes. I have been know to proclaim by admiration of Richardson but tonight was not his night.

By far the most uncomfortable person in the room that evening was John Edwards who has given a few indications that he is not comfortable with equal gay rights. Wow, that straight boy was sweating like he was in a gay bar during happy hour. He just needed to relax.

Kucinich really connected with the studio audience and he said some pretty amazing things, I will admit. But there is that little thing in my head that knows he is striving for an unachievable utopia. And I think he's amazing for running for president now two times to get his voice out there. Anf who knows, maybe one day he will be listened to more and actually get somewhere. (He admitted that he ran five times before getting elected to Congress. How cute.)

This was the first "debate" that Obama actually worked for me. Quiet conviction. And Hillary really didn't do well. Melissa Etheridge (YEAH!) really got emotional with her and Clinton became very cold in her response. Throughout the night I heard, "You are all great people but not great enough to be equal in every way to a straight person." And that's sad. But it is hard to tell if the candidates actually believe that statement or they are just trying to get elected. Perhaps naively, I choose to believe the latter. It says something that they at least showed up, right?

Even though it really wasn't a debate here are some awards:

Winner (with the gays): Dennis Kucinich
Winner (for everyone else): Barack Obama
Loser: Bill Richardson (but rather disqualified for not answering any questions)
Straightest: John Edwards
Best Host: MELISSA ETHERIDGE! Yeah! How great is she? (Though they were all much better than any of the previous debate moderators.)
Candidate Who Has No Idea What LGBT Means: Mike Gravel

Logo Presidential Debate

2007-08-08T18:54:00.000-04:00

How this debate plays out could be something very interesting to watch. How will John Edwards dodge questions? How uncomfortable will Hillary get? How cool will Obama try to play it?

Apparently you can watch the debate online at http://www.logoonline.com/ Thursday, August 9th at 9 PM ET / 6 PM PT. I'll be sure to catch it.

Anyone Else?

2007-08-08T11:32:00.000-04:00

No Comment

2007-08-07T11:30:00.000-04:00

U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq on the Rise in August
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555667

NPR.org, August 7, 2007 · Four U.S. soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs in the Baghdad area, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 19 the number of troop deaths in the first week of August.

The latest casualty figures could signal a resurgence in attacks after July's eight-month low.

Meanwhile, Iraq's political crisis worsened, with five more ministers boycotting Cabinet meetings - leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's unity government without a Sunni political bloc.

The new cracks in al-Maliki's government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Three Task Force Marne soldiers were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, the military said.

One coalition soldier was killed and another wounded Monday when their vehicle was hit by an armor-piercing explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, in a western section of the capital, according to a separate statement.

Washington has accused Iran of supplying Shiite extremists with EFPs to step up attacks against American forces. Tehran denies the allegations.

The military also said earlier that four soldiers were killed in a powerful combat explosion in restive Diyala province north of the capital on Monday.

U.S. commanders have warned they expect militants to try to upstage a September report on military and economic progress in Iraq.

The deaths raised to at least 19 members of the U.S. military who have died this month, or a rate of about three per day, putting August on track for a heavier toll after a drop in July.

Seventy-nine American troop deaths were reported, the lowest number since 70 killed in November.

More than 100 American forces died each month in the April-to-June period as the incoming U.S. troops were deployed with the Iraqi army in Baghdad's dangerous streets and security outposts.

Despite the relatively low number in July, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command, has blamed nearly three-quarters of the attacks on rogue Shiite militias the military believes are being armed and trained by Iran, which he said was increasing its support ahead of the pivotal report to be delivered to Congress in September.

The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met Monday for their third round of talks in just over two months. The U.S. Embassy called the talks between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, "frank and serious."

But it was al-Maliki's troubles that seized the most attention. The Cabinet boycott of five ministers loyal to former Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi left the government, at least temporarily, without participants who were members of the Sunni political apparatus - a deep blow to the prime minister's attempt to craft reconciliation among the country's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis and Kurds.

The defense minister is from a Sunni background but has no political ties and was chosen by al-Maliki.

The Allawi bloc, a mixture of Sunnis and Shiites, cited al-Maliki's failure to respond to its demands for political reform.

The top Sunni political bloc already had pulled its six ministers from the 40-member Cabinet of al-Maliki, a Shiite, last week.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

Debate Review: Republicans in Iowa, August 5th

2007-08-06T13:51:00.000-04:00

I was able to get the whole video of the Republican debate on YouTube. I just love that site. As always, it is hard for me to sit and watch the Republicans debate issues to hear one sexist, closeminded answer after another. But I still find in necessary to watch. Someone may surprise me. And a few did.

I want to point out first of all that anyone who supports anything Tom Tancredo says is no friend of mine. His view that the holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina, could be bombed as a means of achieving victory is the most ridiculous, misunderstood comment of the debate. We are NOT at war with Islam, we are at war with al-Qaeda which represents a very small, extremist sect of fundamentalist Islam. I could not believe Tancredo would say something like this and I wish Stephanopoulos would have elaborated on that more and allowed other candidates to respond. I wonder how many other Republicans would support the destruction of Islamic holy sites. I would hope the others are not as uneducated on those matters as Tancredo.

Mitt Romney just seems like the poster child for Republicans. He's masculine, tall, attractive, and carries around a pretty hefty conservative agenda. He's the father of middle/upper class white America. And reminds me a little bit of Stan from American Dad. Anyone else? These people really get under my skin. But it seems only natural that he would be leading in the Republican polls.

And it was nice to see that Anderson Cooper's prediction that future debates would see voter generated questions came true. There were just a few video questions and I believe one emailed question. Anderson you are my hero.

One thing I can say in the Republican candidates favor is that they are not afraid to dissent with their fellow candidates and party. They represent more diverse opinions than the Democratic candidates strangely enough. There's cute, little Ron Paul, that racist mother-fucker Tancredo, that lovable Rudy Giuliani, and the quietly resigned John McCain. And that makes their debates somewhat watchable.

But let's get to the awards shall we?

Winner: Mike Huckabee
Runner-up: Mitt Romney
Most interesting and likely to recieve my vote (but not really): Rudy Giuliani
Most racist (and this was a toughy): Bomb Tancredo
Democratic pincushion of the evening: Barack Obama
Candidate that looks most like a toad or other amphibian-like creature: Tommy Thompson
Best Response: Rudy Giuliani when given 30 seconds to describe his mistakes in life. Watch it. It was classic.

That Can't Be Good

2007-08-06T11:01:00.000-04:00

190,000 weapons 'missing in Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm

The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years.

The Pentagon did not dispute the figures, but said it was reviewing arms deliveries procedures.

About $19.2bn has been spent by the US since 2003 on Iraqi security forces.

GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, said at least $2.8bn of this money was used to buy and deliver weapons and other equipment.

Correspondents say it is now feared many of the weapons are being used against US forces on the ground in Iraq.

Discrepancies

The GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005.

MISSING IN IRAQ

AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces:
135,000
Helmets: 115,000

During this period, security training was led by Gen David Petraeus, who now commands all US forces in Iraq.
The GAO reached the estimate - 111,000 missing AK-47s and 80,000 missing pistols - by comparing the property records of the Multi-National Security Transition Command for Iraq against records maintained by Gen Petraeus of the arms and equipment he ordered.

Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary Mark Kimmitt told AFP the Pentagon was "reviewing policies and procedures to ensure US-funded equipment reaches the intended Iraqi security forces under the Iraq program".

Weapons delay

The report comes as a political battle rages in Washington over the progress of the war in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress by mid-September on the success of efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance.

Meanwhile, at the end of July, the US Defence Department admitted that the US-led coalition in Iraq had failed to deliver nearly two-thirds of the equipment it promised to Iraq's army.

The Pentagon said only 14.5m of the nearly 40m items of equipment ordered by the Iraqi army had been provided.

The US military commander in charge of training in Iraq has asked for help in speeding up the transfer of equipment.

Iraq's ambassador to the US said the delays were hindering the fighting capacity of its armed forces.

Republican Debate?

2007-08-05T20:35:00.000-04:00

Did anyone else know there was a debate today? That sure slipped by me. Guess it got covered up by too much bridge news. (OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART BECAUSE OF ONE DISASTER! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!) Well I'll have to research this one and get back to you. And by the way, who's Duncan Hunter? Anyone know where this guy came from? More later...

Above: Photo of the Republican Presidential Candidates or a gathering for the funeral of some old, dead, white guy.

Congress: "Next Window, I'm on Break"

2007-08-05T11:14:00.000-04:00

I'm so glad the congress has taken five days off their month long vacation. Poor them. And seems Pelosi really wanted to get into that bathing suit by conceding to Bush's wiretapping bill. From NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12512991):

Congress has finally recessed for the summer, but it took an extraordinary amount of time and effort for that to happen.

The House of Representatives worked until the wee hours of Sunday morning before beginning the August recess; the issues the members faced were tough, and partisanship didn't help.

In the end, President Bush got his way on wiretapping, but the Democratic majorities pushed through their bills on energy, ethics and health insurance for children of the working poor.

NOOOO!!!!!

2007-08-04T22:55:00.000-04:00

Congress approves President Bush's spy bill
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.spying.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Democratic-led Congress yielded to President Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects.

Civil liberties groups charged the measure would create a broad net that would sweep up law-abiding U.S. citizens.

But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28.

The action came amid warnings of possible attacks on the United States.

"After months of prodding by House Republicans, Congress has finally closed the terrorist loophole in our surveillance law -- and America will be the safer for it," declared House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

"We think it is not the bill that ought to pass," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. But he conceded he and fellow Democrats were unable to stop the measure in this national security showdown with the White House.

"Protecting America is our most solemn obligation," Bush said earlier in the day in urging Congress to send him the bill so he could sign it into law.

The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

My Prediction

2007-08-04T16:22:00.000-04:00

Okay. I've done some analysis on all the major candidates. Really, just barely scartching the surface. I'll leave my in depth research to after the nominations have been made. So I thought, just for kicks I'd do an 08/09 Prediction of how the race will play out. It will most likely be completely wrong. And you can forget all about this. But it will be necessary "I Told You So" material if I should happen be right. And what could be better than that? So here it goes folks:

Democratic Presidential Nominees:

President: Hillary Clinton
Vice President: Barack Obama

Black and white. Male and female. Experienced and inexperienced. What could be better than that to represent the party of the people?

Republican Presidential Nominees:

President: Rudy Giuliani
Vice President: Mitt Romney

Crazy White Redneck: "Shit, a women and a black guy, or a divorcee and a polygamist? Fuck, I'm going with the second one."

Independent Presidential Nominees:

President: Michael Bloomberg
Vice President: It doesn't matter

It's going to happen and it's really going to throw a big 'ol wrench into things again. But luckily only for the Republicans. He may just well be the alternative Republican candidate to those who just can't push out a hanging chad for the womanizing, polygamist team as easily as the Crazy White Redneck.

Election Results

Drumroll please...

Clinton/Obama: 55%
Giuliani/Romney: 35%
Bloomberg/Damned if I know: 10%

It will be the highest total yet for the Independents as the Republicans try to pick their poison. And this time, they'll screw themselves in the process instead of the controversy Quasimodo Nader has created for the Democrats in the past. And I'll sit back and watch the votes roll in in hopes of peace in the future. For a change.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Michael Moore on Hillary Clinton

2007-08-04T16:21:00.001-04:00

Candidates: Hillary Clinton

2007-08-04T15:47:00.000-04:00

It is my humble opinion that Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. Of the top three candidates - Obama and Edwards the other two - Clinton seems to have the most confidence, experience, and clout. And I think Clinton is that candidate that will provide that change, but not too much change, that Americans are looking for. I say again: I am not picking my favorite candidates on this blog, I am looking at the facts to predict who the candidates will be. And it is my opinion that Americans are looking for a change they can be comfortable with - not too dramatic or drastic. Just enough to test the waters and see how it goes. Sorry Ron Paul. I don't think we'll be hearing much more from you. (Now let's see if the Ron Paul police come after me again for that.)

So who is this Clinton? What gives her that slight difference? That answer, my friends, lies between her legs. That's right folks, Hillary Clinton is... a woman! And it would seem that the perfect replacement for stubborn, stupid, supper-on-the-table-by-6, masculine president we have now could be the feminine touch. We need someone that instead of using Iraq as his own personal real-world Sims game, will look at things realistically and use dialogue before force. Clinton is that person. That little bit of change that will carry her to the final head-to-head battle.

And from what I've researched about Hillary she has all the right plans for America's future. She wants safe withdrawal from Iraq now, even before her election. And if... um... when that doesn't happen it will be her priority once taking the office. She has plans for energy independence and combating global climate change. She wants government reform and accountability. She is a strong supporter of the middle class. She is pro-choice. It's all there really.

The question is: Is Clinton full of crap? And it seems to me that, of the Democratic candidates, she is the most full of crap. If you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko you know that she once was a strong supporter of universal health care and is now the second largest recipient of healh care money in the senate. Is this okay? Well not really. But it is evidence that Clinton is talking out her ass. Probably more so then we know. And it is for this reason that she is the most experienced politician. And why she will win the Democratic nomination. Cynical and true.

Chance of Nomination: 75%

In Other "Non-Bridge" News...

2007-08-04T01:07:00.000-04:00

House Rejects Democratic Spy Bill
from The Associated Press

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12492638

WASHINGTON August 3, 2007, 9:09 p.m. ET · Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.

The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.

Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.

That left the outcome in doubt hours after Bush implored lawmakers to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before leaving Washington for a monthlong summer break — a potentially vulnerable time for attacks because of the high-travel season.

In the Senate, Democrats prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House after getting a vote on their own measure. Both were debated Friday night.

The House, meanwhile, moved toward a vote on a Democratic-written bill opposed by Bush and expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed there to pass.

It would require a review by the FISA court within 15 days after intelligence agents get the newly expanded powers for eavesdropping on terrorists abroad without warrants and end that authority in four months.
Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."

"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short."

Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.

The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists.

The two sides also struggled over how long new powers that Bush wants should last.

Generally, the law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.

Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before the eavesdropping began. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:

—Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
—FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.
—The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.

Just Because We Can Use a Reminder

2007-07-31T20:35:00.000-04:00

If you believe in this message - post a comment with one simple word: Peace.

No End in Sight Trailer

2007-07-30T11:41:00.001-04:00

Candidate Response (kind of)

2007-07-29T22:04:00.000-04:00

Forgive the lower frequency of posts for the past few days. I have been away.

While away, I received one message back from the candidates regarding my question about fear to live in the US. Well, actually from one of the "volunteers" from the Ron Paul campaign. Not much. But for what it's worth here's the message:

Thanks for your note. I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but I myself don't feel
safer with my civil liberties eroded they way they have been under the Bush
Administration.

Yours in liberty,
Matt G. -- Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008

I have somewhat enjoyed Paul's campaign for his desire to hold the Bush administration accoutable for their criminal actions, as this statement suggests. I imagine Paul would not let a volunteer from his campaign stray too far from his point of view as well. In all other aspects, however, Ron Paul is crazy. The amount of change he proposes is absurd and frankly bogus. But he will not receive a nomination any time soon so we won't have to worry. Unless he ends up on the Libertarian ticket or something. But then we still won't have to worry I suppose.

Thanks "Matt G" for the response.

Interesting Interview with Ron Paul

2007-07-25T18:59:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul's Libertarian Message Attracts Supporters

All Things Considered, July 25, 2007 · Republican congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has distinguished himself from the pack with his libertarian message, and his campaign's momentum has been accelerating with impressive speed.

Paul is a doctor — an obstetrician and gynecologist who was an Air Force flight surgeon in the 1960s.

In Congress, he is a steadfast opponent of big government, voting against many tax increases, against the USA Patriot Act, and against two wars with Iraq.

The former Libertarian presidential candidate has created a stir on the Internet. He also has raised a significant amount of money while spending very little, which gives him about the same amount of cash in the bank as one-time Republican front-runner John McCain.

Paul, the only Republican to vote against the current war in Iraq, talks to Robert Siegel about the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, congressional pensions and other issues he is highlighting on the campaign trail.

If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?

As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war…. Of course, in the overall foreign policy, I'd like to bring the troops home from most other places around the world, too.

Get the troops back on American soil? That's what you propose?

That is correct.

Withdraw the Navy from the Persian Gulf?

Yes, definitely, because that [having U.S. ships there] is very provoking and that sends a signal that we're there for the oil, and a lot of people do admit that. We don't care about some of the problems in Africa like we care about the problems in the Middle East, and oil is one of the big factors.

You would also, if you had your druthers, withdraw from NATO?

Yes, certainly. That is sort of an old right, conservative Republican position, and certainly after the Cold War ended, there was a lot less need for NATO. I think NATO is embarking in the wrong direction right now by moving right up to the borders of Russia and almost trying to renew the Cold War unnecessarily.

Out of the United Nations?

Yes, I certainly think so, because it's part of the draining of our resources. It's not like you have to close it down in one day…. If you could immediately limit it to the participation in war, it wouldn't bother me quite so much. But I don't think our interests are well served by giving some of our sovereignty up.

What you've described as an old, conservative Republican view of foreign affairs is called, in many quarters, isolationism.

Some people who would like to diminish its value call it that. I don't call it that, because to me, it's the opposite. It conforms with what the founders advised, and that is, yes, we don't get involved in the entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations, but they strongly advocated trade and talking and travel. And now that we follow that policy with Vietnam … [the country] has Westernized; we trade with them; their president comes here, we invest in Vietnam. So we achieved in peace what we couldn't achieve with war. But it's a far cry from isolationism.

Do I have it right that in your years in Congress, you have not taken advantage of the congressional pension system?

That is correct. Of course, you only take advantage [of the pension] when you leave. No, I don't participate. My wife sometimes asks me about it — the wisdom of all this.

Why don't you take part in it?

On principle… [i]t's probably not quite as biased an advantage as it used to be. But when I first went into Congress, it was such a biased system, and so I saw this as an abuse of power, and a privilege that members of Congress should not have.

You have not taken congressional trips overseas.

No…. I don't because too many times they're junkets. Sometimes they're done with great sincerity, but since I'm a noninterventionist, I already know what our dealings should be with other countries. I don't need to go and check on how our money's being spent. I don't want to spend the money.

Have you traveled on your own nickel overseas as a congressman?

Not very often. I did… a lot of traveling as a flight surgeon. But since that time, I've only made one major trip, and it was a major economic event: a translation of a major economic textbook… into Czech, and so I went to Prague to help celebrate this translation, and that was done with personal finances, as well as help from the University of Prague.

I want to ask you a couple of quick things. I want to ask you first about your exchange with [New York] Mayor [Rudy] Giuliani in the recent debate when you said, look at why al-Qaida struck at New York — the U.S. had been bombing Iraq, the U.S. presence in the Middle East was what they were objecting to — and Mayor Giuliani turned on you as if to say, you've just said it was as if the U.S. deserved the attacks of Sept. 11.

It was a political deal for him to try to jump on that, but it was absurd. It's sort of like, we find a murderer and we look for the motive — then you're blaming the victim. No, I'm not blaming the victim, I'm not blaming the American people, but I am blaming American policy for contributing to the problem. I defended that with quotes from the 9/11 Report, quotes from [Paul] Wolfowitz... and then the most preposterous thing he said was that he had never heard of such a thing. Well, where has he been? That's why I presented him a list of books — if you just read this, you would know where these ideas come from, because it's a condition that has been described clearly by the CIA, that there is blowback. These things come back to hit us..... If you look at the Iranian problems today, that started in 1953 when we first threw over a democratically elected leader, and we've been suffering ever since.

Realistically, what chance do you give yourself of winning the Republican nomination?

A lot more than it was six months ago, I tell you that. We're in the top tier now; we're third and fourth in money and money in the bank, and our numbers are growing. But I know what the odds are. But I also know how many young people and others are very receptive to this, and said, you know, it's about time we talked about freedom rather than how the government is going to take care of us from cradle to grave, invade our privacy, fight these war[s], and run the economy.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

GoLeft TV - July 24 News

2007-07-25T09:59:00.000-04:00

Email to the Candidates

2007-07-25T00:54:00.000-04:00

I was able to track down some email contacts for some of the candidates. None of them really have a snowballs chance in a world affected by Global Climate Change (clever, I know) but I thought I'd ask them a quick question. I asked them:

Are you more afraid to live in this country now than you were seven years ago? Do you think that, in general, Americans now live their lives with more fear than seven years ago? If so, can this fear be mended with you as president?

The question was asked to Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

I will certainly post the candidates answers on this blog if any should come in.

Candidates: Bill Richardson

2007-07-24T18:51:00.000-04:00

I thought I would take a quick look at my new favorite candidate - Bill Richardson. Not because I think he will get the nomination but because I think he might get the VP nom. So here's just a few things I found.

He wants OUT of Iraq NOW! Even by the end of this year while Dubya's still in charge. Wow. Good luck. But I'm completely behind you on that. Richardson thinks the money being wasted over there would be better spent on domestic issues. Sense? What?

Climate Change prevention? Check. He did it already in New Mexico by making it a "Clean Energy State." Don't know what that means entirely but it sounds pretty good to me.

Pro-Choice? Yep.

Equal Rights? He's got that too folks.

I am a little confused by Richardson's Health Care Plan. You can read it for yourself here http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/healthcare. Key words here is "affordable" health care. I believe the States could achieve what every other industrialized nation has and have universal, free health care for all. So we differ a bit here. However, there is no question that this plan is better than we have now. But then, better than what we have now on anything is not hard to achieve.

And, lastly, from his website:

This administration’s lack of realism has led us to a dangerous place. We need to take a different path. A path based on reality, not unilateralist illusions. A path that understands that the gravest dangers that threaten us today do not threaten only us – and that therefore to pursue our national interest and meet these challenges we must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between. This is a path not of hard words, but of hard work. A path of moral strength, not pious judgments. A path of strong diplomacy, backed up by a strong military and strong alliances. This is the path of American leadership.

Nice.

Chance of Nomination: 10%

YouTube Debate Review

2007-07-24T14:59:00.000-04:00

I don't really have that much to say about the YouTube Debate other than I thought it was one of the greatest presidential debates I can recall seeing. The questions were pointed and somewhat different. And they were coming from what seemed to be passionate, concerned voters looking for answers.

That's not to say that we got answers however. Almost all the candidates seemed to avoid straight answers just as politicians always do. Especially the front runners who actually have a chance at the nomination. The crazies like Gravel had no problem with straight talk and you see what effect that's been having on his poll numbers.

My favorite candidate of the evening was Bill Richardson. I really haven't paid much attention to him, nor do I think I should since he won't get the nomination, but he intrigued me nonetheless. I think he has the best exit strategy for Iraq withdrawal, the best stance on gay marriage, immigration, and education reform. And a nice speaking style that makes me believe him with the right balance of compassion, anger, and, for lack of a better word, chutzbah. But I'm thinking he would be a very good choice for VP for Hillary. Oops. I spoke to soon. But you know its true folks. Lets all just start getting used to it now shall we? And he would be a great face for the rising Latino poplulation in the States. Best of all, what would scare the Taliban and Republicans more than a woman and a Latino running this country? It's perfect.

And a few more awards for the evening:

Best Performance from a Candidate Who May Actually Win: Hillary Clinton

Most Dodged Questions: Hillary Clinton

Most Awkward Moment: John Edwards talking about women's rights

Best YouTube Question: The montage on how to fix healthcare

The Missing Question: Abortion

Most Brady Bunch Moment: All the candidates loving the candidate to the left of them. Irony anyone?

Greatest Moment: Dennis Kucinich: "Notice they didn't put anyone to the left of me." Anderson Cooper: "I don't think it's possible."

YouTube Debate Winners

2007-07-23T21:18:00.000-04:00

I'll have a more in depth review of the debate tomorrow but for now - something quick:

Winner: Bill Richardson
Runner Up: Joe Biden
Best Performance from Someone Who Will Not Get the Nomination: Bill Richardson
Worst Performance: The cameramen who decided to go with so many tight face shots
Most Ornary: Mike Gravel
Best Performance from a Female: Hillary Clinton

YouTube Debate Tonight

2007-07-23T11:33:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone will get a chance to watch the first YouTube debates tonight on CNN. I think it should be pretty interesting and certainly historic. The Democrats, I imagine, will pretend to take it in stride and play it real cool as they "connect with the people." You know they're scared as hell as to what they're going to be asked. The Republicans will be even more awkward however. That should be the most interesting. But anyway, I'll be putting in a review tomorrow.

Questions about Giuliani

2007-07-22T12:21:00.000-04:00

I keep hearing a lot about Rudy Giuliani. He's a fraud. A flip flopper. Whatever. What do people think of him? Is he pro choice? What does he think of Global Climate Change? How about gay rights? I can't figure this guy out. Your knowledge is welcome and any sources you have for it would be great. Thanks.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

2007-07-20T20:57:00.000-04:00

Cheney to be in charge during Bush colonoscopy
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/20/bush.colonoscopy/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney will serve as acting president briefly Saturday while President Bush is anesthetized for a routine colonoscopy, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday.

Bush is scheduled to have the medical procedure, expected to take about 2 1/2 hours, at the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, Snow said.

Bush's last colonoscopy was in June 2002, and no abnormalities were found, Snow said.

The president's doctor had recommended a repeat procedure in about five years.

The procedure will be supervised by Dr. Richard Tubb and conducted by a multidisciplinary team from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, Snow said.

A colonoscopy is the most sensitive test for colon cancer, rectal cancer and polyps, small clumps of cells that can become cancerous, according to the Mayo Clinic. Small polyps may be removed during the procedure.

Snow said that was the case when Bush had colonoscopies before becoming president.
Snow himself is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer that began in his colon and spread to his liver.

Snow told reporters he had a chemo session scheduled later Friday. Watch Snow talk about Bush's procedure and his own colon cancer »

"The president wants to encourage everybody to use surveillance," Snow said.

The American Cancer Society recommends that people without high-risk factors or symptoms begin getting screened for signs of colorectal cancer at age 50.

Candidates: Rudy Giuliani

2007-07-20T13:04:00.000-04:00

I really thought I liked Giuliani when he was the mayor of New York. I really knew nothing about his politics nor did I care. I thought he handled 9/11 really well and vividly remember his speech to America on SNL saying it was okay to laugh again. But that’s in the past and I would rather consider the now when looking into his nomination.

Giuliani reminds me in a strange way of Barack Obama. Both have used this kind of “real guy” charisma as the basis of their campaign. Giuliani has seemingly no dirty laundry that has not already been hung out to dry. But he doesn’t shove it in our face in the same way that Obama does. While Obama seems to say, “Look at how normal and great I am! Vote for me!” Giuliani says, “Yeah, what’re you gonna do about it?” And I kind of like that. But let’s talk about his politics a wee bit shall we?

For what its worth, Giuliani lists “12 Commitments to the American People” on his website www.joinrudy2008.com:

I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on us.
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Ok. Whatever that means. Seems like a list of empty promises that look good on paper anyways. But there is nothing very new here. For a Republican anyway. And I thought this guy used to be pro choice? I need to look further than these “commitments.”

I think he really is kind of pro choice. He says he “supports reasonable restrictions on abortion.” Yeah so do I. Nine months is a little late. So this issue is a little shrouded in creative jargon that is appealing both to liberals and conservatives.

Iraq. Giuliani really seems to think the war is a mistake and a bad thing but that it must be won. While I believe it has already been lost, he is still going to truck on it seems. And wants no “artificial timetable” for withdrawl. Damn. This things going to go on forever.

I don’t quite know how one can make tax cuts and restore fiscal discipline in times of mass deficit. But that’s one of those magical Republican mysteries.

And there’s some other stuff on his website. But noticeably absent is the issue of global climate change. In my research I can’t find Giuliani’s specific beliefs on GCC. One of his “commitments” is to create energy independence. But I see no real plan for dealing with this.

Giuliani seems very mysterious to me. I don’t really get him on a lot of things because he doesn’t make things very clear. The mark of someone who will get the nomination. And it is for that reason that I am almost certain Giuliani will be getting the Republican nomination. I’ll have to investigate further when he gets the coveted seat.

Chance of nomination: 85%

Fear

2007-07-19T14:02:00.000-04:00

It has recently occured to me just how much the United States is dominated by fear. A fear which has been replaced by a security in superiority over the rest of the world. Let's use a historical example to illustrate my point.

Rome. Rome is quite possibly the greatest superpower in history. (The Egyptians, Third Reich, Napoleon's France, and Colonial England also can top the list.) They pretty much did whatever they wanted, killed who ever the wanted, raped, pillaged, and just generally told other people what to do. And who was going to argue with a sword? But eventually people got sick of it. And major corruption, politically and economically split the empire in two and eventually destroyed itself with its own arrogance.

See where I'm going with this? I see the States in a very similar way. And instead of the Colliseum, we have a never ending string of reality shows and game shows hosted by the nobodys of yesteryear - Wayne Brady, Joey Fatone, Drew Carey, and Howie Mandel. But I digress.

What is happening now is our period of downfall. We think we're still all that and a bag of chips but we're just... well... a bag of chips. And "Better Made" brand chips at that. It is easy to see political corruption with a government that has absolutely NO FUCKING CLUE what they are doing and a population that is continually being lied to and brainwashed. And our division as a country is not a physical one but it is very real. Red America and Blue America are two seperate worlds. And uniting now seems a very unlikely possibility. (Though "I'm a Uniter Not a Divider" might disagree. Asshole.) Economic disparity does not take an expert to notice in the United States. I have a father out of work and I notice it everyday.

So we return to fear. I think Bush is afraid out of his fucking mind. That is the reason he went into war in the first place. He can't stand a sense of a culture and people different than his own in the world that America somehow owns. I don't support a lot of fundamentalist Islams doctrines either but the really great thing is I don't have have to. I don't support most Christians ideas either. So what? They don't bother me. (Unless they tell me who to marry and what I can do with MY body. Then, yeah, we have issues.) I don't bother them. I go on with the rest of my life. But Bush is afraid of the "different" people with brown skin and funny clothes. "Not in MY world" the racist, close-minded bastard says, "Who's got a weapon?"

Absurd. Fucking absurd.

America needs to stop being so afraid. Because fear only produces vulnerability. And when you are vulnerable, you will do whatever the man in charge tells you to do. Why? Because the man in the white doctor coat knows more than you. So what if he's a pedophile and rapist.

There are other people in this world! We are no longer a superpower like we used to be and like so many before us were. So stop being so arrogant, stubborn, and just plain rude. I am NOT proud to be an American in THIS America. Take a lesson from England, Germany, France, and other former superpowers and just live your lives knowing that you are NOT the greatest person or country in the world and you DO NOT know the right and just way to do something. Because you aren't and you don't. Stop being afraid that the "others," that "they," are going to come into our cozy little home and change you. Whats so bad about change anyway if it does happen?

And for those that say we cannot face another chance of an attack like 9/11, you are just foolish. YOU CANNOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF TOMORROW! The chances of you dying in a car crash are far greater than you being killed by a terrorist. And I see no reduction in driving. (Except maybe from high gas prices. Thanks again Dubya.) So wake up and live your life people.

I'm awake!

For Those Who Can't Wait

2007-07-18T19:06:00.000-04:00

http://www.canadahomes4sale.com/

I'm Tired

2007-07-18T18:57:00.000-04:00

Senate Republicans Block Iraq Troop Pullout
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12055943

NPR.org, July 18, 2007 · Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Democrats to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by April.

After an all-night session, the 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"We have to get us out of a middle of a civil war," said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. A political solution must be found "so when we leave Iraq, we don't just send our children home, we don't have to send our grandchildren back."

As members cast their votes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hurried between private meetings with lawmakers in their Capitol Hill offices to make the administration's case for the war.

The Democratic proposal, by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), would have required the president to start bringing home troops within 120 days and complete the pullout by April 30, 2008.

Under the bill, an unspecified number of troops could remain behind to conduct a narrow set of missions: counterterrorism, protection of U.S. assets and the training of Iraqi security forces.

Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition to setting a deadline for troop withdrawals, with a few exceptions. Three Republicans — Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — had announced previously that they would support the measure.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is up for re-election next year, also voted to advance the bill.

Other GOP members, while uneasy about the war, said they could not support legislation that would force President Bush to adhere to a firm pullout date.

"The amendment tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who is also up for re-election next year.

The bill "is the wrong approach at the wrong time," he added.

Among lawmakers scheduled to meet with Rice were Biden, Smith, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and House Republican leader John Boehne of Ohio.

From Associated Press reports

I'm Awake!

2007-07-18T17:19:00.000-04:00

A week or so ago, Melissa Etheridge did a great set at the Live Earth concert. She gave a scathing oration about the Bush administration and all the shit that can be attributed to them. (I have posted the YouTube videos on this blog.) I loved every second of it. Etheridge provoked everyone to tell people, "I'm awake!" in an effort to "scare the hell" out of the Bush administration.

And this week, perhaps more than I have in quite some time, I am unbelievably pissed off at Bush and his cronies. Does he not think anyone is listening anymore? Why are people just sitting back and letting Bush get away with criminal behavior? Are we all asleep or something? This is ridiculous.

I'M AWAKE!

We are hearing new reports about Al Qaeda being stronger than ever. Am I concerned? No. Do I know anyone that is? No. Why? Because no one cares what this administration has to say anymore. We are so sick of the lies and constant stubborness of Bush, we aren't paying attention anymore. No one cares. And I'm no expert and have done absolutely no research on the subject but I see no reason why another terrorist attack - here or abroad is not imminent. London just had one. There will be another one. Should I be afraid? Hell no. Bush has tried to scare us all into submissive robots willing to submit to whatever he wishes so he can violate the constitution and international human rights in order to spread "democracy," "freedom," and "Christianity" to a country that not only doesn't want it but doesn't need it.

I'M AWAKE!

And I'm pissed off. Bush also put the breaks on some bill that he says promotes "socialized medicine." Yeah do you know how horrible this place would be if we were able to have guarenteed free medical care. A hell hole thats what. An organized, healthy, comfortable hell hole. Now who would want that?

I'M AWAKE!

I can't do this anymore. We need something to happen here. And the really great thing is our congress is taking a month long vacation and the war will have to be put on hold until September. September! Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to let this thing keep going, and keep innocent people dying, and keep Al Qaeda growing stronger for another month! I hope you enjoy sipping your pina colada on a beach in the Carribean while millions suffer from this pointless war. You people make me sick.

I'M AWAKE! Are you?

Our Baby Enters the Argumentative Tween Years

2007-07-15T00:02:00.000-04:00

Maliki: Iraq Able to Keep Security After U.S. Exit
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980818

Weekend Edition Saturday, July 14, 2007 · Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday's White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."

But he added that Iraqi forces are "still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation" to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks - "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

"These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges," he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation - a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report "objective," but added, "this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a "purely American vision."

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

"This embarrasses the government in front of its people," he said, calling the civilian deaths a "human rights violation."

From The Associated Press

Give It a Rest People!

2007-07-13T23:32:00.000-04:00

Gates, Rice Try to Firm Support for War on Terror
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11957597

NPR.org, July 13, 2007 · The Bush administration on Friday launched a campaign to shore up support for the war on terror, a day after Congress handed the president a stinging rebuke by voting in favor of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said al-Qaida has become a "franchise organization" and that it was gaining a foothold in North Africa. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, echoed the administration's call for more time to see results from the troop surge in Iraq.

But soon after those comments were made, two of President Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate urged him to draft plans to begin a possible troop withdrawal by the end of the year.

The proposal from Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) would leave it up to the president to order any pullout of troops. But it underscores the growing bipartisan opposition in Congress to the increasingly unpopular war.

Friday, the administration sought to deflect attention away from the Iraqi government's struggles and toward the United States' need to fight terrorism — in Iraq and elsewhere.

At a news conference with Gen. William Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary Gates also told journalists that following the ouster of the Taliban in 2002, Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been forced to operate in "primitive conditions," which had precluded "the kind of centralized control they had before 9/11."

As a result, al-Qaida units around the world had been forced to work semiautonomously, while continuing to receive strategic guidance from Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants.

The attempt to clarify Washington's thinking on the terrorist network came a day after President Bush disputed media characterizations that a U.S. intelligence report indicated that al-Qaida was "stronger than ever" and the House voted for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning in April.

After the 223-201 vote for a Democratic proposal to force a U.S. troop withdrawal by next spring, Rice acknowledged in a round of television interviews that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has not achieved "as much progress as we would like."

The White House took the position that the House vote shows, "we have at least a cohesive position on our side for now," said the deputy press secretary.

"We are under no illusion, and we're very clear-eyed about the fact that we have a lot of work to do to talk to members of Congress, hear what they have to say," White House spokesperson Dana Perino said Friday.

Rice on Friday exhorted congressional critics of Iraq war policy Friday to give the Bush administration and the fledgling government in Baghdad until September to "make a coherent judgment of where we are."

"We shouldn't just dismiss as inconsequential the progress that they have made," she argued.

Rice echoed a more conciliatory tone adopted by the president in recent weeks, acknowledging what Bush on Thursday called "war fatigue" among the public.

"I understand people's concern. I understand people's impatience," she said. But Rice, who appeared on Fox News, ABC, CBS and CNN, said "we ought to stick" to the troop build up strategy that President Bush announced in January.

Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters via a video linkup from Iraq that "there will be consequences" if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon.

"With the support of the American people, I'm convinced that we can continue to make progress," he said.

"What troubles me about this debate - and it is important and it needs to be debated, for sure - is it seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq … and determine how we can reach that end state and how much time it will take," added Mixon, who commands troops in northern Iraq, including the violent Diyala province.

He enumerated several military successes - the number of militants captured, weapons caches seized, terrain retaken and so on. But he also acknowledged that much work remains.

Congressional Democrats, saying the war was draining U.S. assets from the fight against al-Qaida, moved Friday to highlight what they see as a major failure in Bush's war on terror: the inability to bring bin Laden to justice.

The Senate voted 87-1 in favor of doubling the reward to $50 million for information leading to his capture. The bill also would require regular classified reports from the administration explaining what steps it's taking to find bin Laden.

Melissa Etheridge Live Earth Part 2 of 2

2007-07-11T01:03:00.003-04:00

Melissa Etheridge Live Earth Part 1 of 2

2007-07-11T01:03:00.001-04:00

Amazing

I Need To Wake Up

2007-07-07T12:19:00.001-04:00

7.7.07

2007-07-07T11:57:00.000-04:00

This is an exciting day. Global Climate Change has been real and talked about on and off again for years. Today is the first day I can remember that the whole globe seems to be talking all at once. And a global dialogue is the absolutely essential tool needed to solve this problem. Do some research today. Change something today. I'm not asking you to buy a hybrid. I know most of us can't afford it. But at least carpool or walk today. Eat meatless. Unplug unused electronics. Change a light bulb. And have a little fun listening to the Live Earth concerts on the radio, MSN, or, as I am currently doing, on Bravo. Just so long as your other electronics or TV's are unplugged. Changes will not be inconvenient. They just require a little thought.

ANSWER THE CALL!

Neutralize Your Pollution

2007-07-07T11:48:00.000-04:00

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=270
How does it work?
Even if you have already reduced your driving and electricity use, there's more you can do. You can neutralize the rest of your pollution—through offsets. When you buy offsets, you essentially pay someone to reduce or remove global warming pollution in your name.

For example, when you buy 10 tons of carbon offsets, the seller guarantees that 10 fewer tons of global warming pollution go into the atmosphere. While the pollution you produce yourself is the same, you get the credit for that 10-ton reduction.

Where can you buy offsets?
Shopping for offsets can be confusing. If you're not an expert, it can be hard to tell how much pollution is really being reduced or removed.

We've done the work for you. All these offsets were evaluated by a team of experts and meet our standards for credible, high-quality offsets. The prices range from $4 to $8 per metric ton. Find out more about offsets and how these were selected.

Carbonfund.org
Carbonfund.org works with dairy farms in California. Manure from 14 farms is collected daily and processed in a closed environment that captures greenhouse gases. In addition, the recovered gases are used to power a nearby groundwater clean-up system.

e-BlueHorizons SM
e-BlueHorizons’ projects capture heat-trapping gases from landfills in New England. One project in Massachusetts uses the recovered gases to generate electricity. Another, in New Hampshire, uses the captured gases to treat wastewater from the landfill. A portion of the proceeds is also used to plant trees along the Lower Mississippi River Valley.

AtmosClear Climate Club
AtmosClear works with a landfill in Illinois. Greenhouse gases from the landfill are collected so they do not escape to the atmosphere and used to generate electricity. In addition, the project reduces odor and the potential for groundwater contamination.

DrivingGreen
DrivingGreen’s projects work with livestock farmers in Mexico. Greenhouse gases from animal waste are captured and used to generate energy. The projects can also improve local air quality and help reduce the risk of groundwater contamination.

Natsource LLC - DuPont - Blue Source
Natsource LLC represents select DuPont and Blue Source GHG emission reduction projects. The projects are located in Kentucky, Maine, Texas, and Wyoming. They reduce emissions by preventing pollution, switching to cleaner fuels, and capturing and storing carbon.

Drive Smart

2007-07-07T11:31:00.000-04:00

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=268
Drive efficiently
Watching how you drive can improve your car's mileage per gallon, cutting global warming pollution and saving you anywhere from $200 to $500 each year.

Travel light and pack smart. Extra weight decreases fuel economy. Hauling an extra 100 pounds in your vehicle reduces fuel economy by up to 2 percent. Place luggage inside rather than on the roof or trunk to minimize drag and increase mileage.

Drive less aggressively. Aggressive driving—rapid acceleration and braking—can lower gas mileage by as much as 33 percent on the highway and 5 percent in town. Aggressive drivers are using an extra 125 gallons of gas and spending over $250 more than average drivers each year.

Slow down. In highway travel, exceeding the speed limit by a mere 5 mph results in an average fuel economy loss of 6 percent.

Know when to use the air. Air conditioning can decrease your fuel efficiency by as much as 12 percent in stop-and-go traffic, so consider cracking the windows. But at high speeds, driving with the windows open can decrease the overall efficiency of the vehicle.

Don't idle. If you are stopping for more than ten seconds—except in traffic—turn off your engine. Idling for more than ten seconds uses more gas and creates more global warming pollution than simply restarting your engine.

Maintain your car
Keep your vehicle operating in peak performance by following these recommendations.

Keep your engine tuned properly. Checking spark plugs, oxygen sensors, air filters, hoses and belts are a few examples of maintenance that can save a vehicle owner up to 165 gallons of gas per year, resulting in potential savings of $380.

Check the tires. Have your wheels aligned and keep your tires properly inflated. Low tire pressure wastes over two million gallons of gasoline in the United States—every day. For every pound of pressure below recommended levels, fuel economy drops 1 percent. Keeping your tires properly inflated means saving about a tank of gas a year.

Drive less
No matter how smart you drive, leaving the car parked always saves more gas and pollution.

Combine trips. Consider running all your errands in the same area at once, rather than making separate trips. Cutting a 20 mile trip out of your schedule each week can reduce your global warming pollution by more than 1,200 pounds a year and save you over $100 in gas expenses.

Telecommute once a week. Americans traveled 614.5 billion miles to and from work in 2001. If all commuters worked from home just one day a week, we could save 5.85 billion gallons of oil and cut over 65 million metric tons (roughly 143 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide each year.

Carpool and use public transportation when possible. An average 2005 passenger car costs about 31 cents per mile in fuel, maintainance and depreciation to drive. If you share rides and use other means to get to work, you'll save yourself money, reduce congestion on the roads and cut your global warming pollution.

Save Energy and Money at Home

2007-07-07T11:24:00.000-04:00

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=267
The energy we use at home accounts for about a fifth of U.S. global warming pollution. That means making smart choices at home matters.

Heating and cooling
This is a top home energy user, with the average household producing about four tons of heat-trapping pollution a year. It is heavily influenced by weather. For example, a relatively cold 1996 led to an increase in heat-trapping emissions compared to the previous year. But the next year, a warmer winter helped emissions dip bit. Warmer summers increase greenhouse gas pollution, too, from heavy air conditioning use. Despite the relative warm or coolness of the season, the U.S. emits a harmful amount of global warming pollution.

Even as the weather varies, your choices can help spew less global warming pollution.

- In summer, keep shades drawn to keep the cool in.
- In winter, open shades to let the sunlight to help warm rooms.
- In winter, keep your thermostat cooler at night or when the house is empty.
- Install a programmable thermostat to heat and cool rooms only when necessary.
- Plant trees around your house to cut cooling costs in summer.
- Insulate your walls and ceilings.
- Install a light-colored or reflective roof.

Appliances
After heating, refrigerators and freezers are generally the home's next two big energy eaters. Other appliances follow closely. Together, these items account for nearly eight tons of heat-trapping emissions per household per year.

Upgrade to Energy Star products. Not all appliances are equal. Whether you're in the market for a new fridge, toaster or air conditioner, look for Energy Star choices, which offer the best energy savings.

Size counts. When in the market for an appliance, make sure you buy what suits your needs. Items too large or too small waste electricity and your money.

Unplug. Your electric meter is often adding up kilowatt hours when you don’t think you’re using an appliance. Unplug toasters and cell phone and other chargers when they’re not in use. Don't use air fresheners that have to be plugged in.

Use power strips. Cable boxes and video game boxes, and to a lesser extent TVs and VCRs, use almost as much energy when they're off as when they're on. Make it easy to turn them all the way off—plug them into a power strip and turn off the whole strip.

Lighting
Lighting accounts for about 21 percent of commercial energy consumption and about 12 percent of home energy consumption. In terms of heat-trapping pollution, that means the lights in the average household produce just over a ton of carbon dioxide each year. Here are a few steps to lower those numbers.

Use energy-efficient lights. Changing just one 75-watt bulb to a compact fluorescent light cuts roughly 1,300 pounds of global warming pollution. They also last up to 15 times as long and save you money.

Turn off lights. A good chunk of lighting expenses is from rooms that stay unnecessarily lit.

Use natural light. Open shades and use sunlight to help light rooms.

Install motion-sensors so that lights automatically turn on when someone is in the room and turn off when empty.

Green Energy
Does your electric company sell energy from renewable sources, like wind and solar? More than forty states in the U.S. now offer cleaner energy. Find out more about home energy choices.

- Other energy efficient choices for your home
- Use the energy saver cycle on your dishwasher and only run it when full.
- Wash clothes in warm or cold water, not hot.
- Turn down your water heater to 120°Fahrenheit.
- Clean or replace the air filter on your air conditioner.
- Install low-flow shower heads to use less hot water.
- Caulk and weatherstrip around doors and windows.
- Ask your utility company for a free home energy audit.

Live Earth

2007-07-06T21:48:00.000-04:00

Domenici for President!

2007-07-06T10:51:00.000-04:00

GOP Sen. Pete Domenici Backs Iraq Troop Pullout
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11778275

NPR.org, July 6, 2007 · Sen. Pete Domenici has withdrawn support for President Bush's Iraq war policy and embraced a proposal to bring home most troops by March.

The longtime New Mexico senator is the latest of several Republican stalwarts who have abandoned Bush on Iraq in the past 10 days. They have urged a change sooner rather than later and further isolated the GOP president in his attempt to defend the unpopular war.

Last week, Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and George Voinovich (R-OH), said the U.S. should significantly reduce its military presence in Iraq while bolstering diplomatic efforts. Sen. John Warner, (R-VA), this month is expected to propose a new approach.

With Congress on its July Fourth break, Domenici made his views known Thursday, though he said he has not talked to the administration about wanting a strategy shift.

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," he said.
"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops," Domenici said. "But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Domenici was elected in 1972 and is a senior member of a panel that oversees defense spending. He said at a news conference that parents of those killed in Iraq previously told him the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes. Now, he said, some parents have asked him to do more to bring the troops home sooner.

The senator said the situation in Iraq is getting worse. He said he now supports a bipartisan bill that embraces the findings of the independent Iraq Study Group.

In December, the group said the primary mission of U.S. troops should evolve to supporting Iraqi security forces. The report also said the U.S. should reduce political, military or economic support for Iraq if the Baghdad government cannot make substantial progress.

The group said combat troops could be out by March 2008 if specific steps were taken.

The bill would make most of the group's findings official U.S. policy. The measure is also backed by Sens. Robert Bennett (R-UT), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

How Could 500 Americans Be Wrong?

2007-07-05T23:37:00.000-04:00

I love the results of this survey and think it offers us some hope in the next election. But take a look at the final paragraph stating that only 500 Americans were surveyed. How is that possibly enough people to validate this thing?

Poll: Majorities Say Income Gap Too Wide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11770901

from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON July 5, 2007, 8:03 p.m. ET · Income differences in the U.S. are too stark, and the government should provide jobs and training for those having a tough time, according to majorities in a national poll released Thursday.

About seven in 10 said discrepancies between income levels are too large, a sentiment voiced by nearly two-thirds of those from households earning at least $80,000 a year, the survey said. Three-fourths of people earning less than $80,000 agreed.

Eight in 10 said the gap between the rich and the middle class has worsened over the last 25 years, said the survey by the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

The poll comes in the early stages of a 2008 presidential campaign in which several Democratic candidates have discussed a widening distance between the country's rich and poor.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has made "two Americas" one of his favorite themes. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have also touched on the topic.

In the survey, 58 percent said large pay differences help get people to work harder. Yet 61 percent said such discrepancies are not needed for the country to prosper.

Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one. Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy.

Even so, nearly two-thirds said it is not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.

The survey was conducted from June 18 to July 2 and involved telephone interviews with 500 adults nationally. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Barack Obama With Jay

2007-07-05T17:49:00.001-04:00

Candidates: Barack Obama

2007-07-05T13:32:00.000-04:00

So here’s the deal on Obama. I don’t like him. From his first introduction into the world of politics I haven’t liked him. And I didn’t know anything about his politics. The reasoning goes like this: He thinks he’s Jesus. Just watch him. He’s worshipped by people who are worshipped – Oprah for example. (There’s another rant I could make.) Do you remember that video of Obama “returning to his homeland?” Pathetic. And what continues to irritate me about Obama is that he is continually referred to as “black” and even uses this adjective himself. But Obama is NOT black. He is of mixed ethnicities. Clearly, there’s nothing wrong with either of these things but being 50% black and 50% white is not black. And I don’t see him making any tearful homecomings to Europe. It is no reason to not vote for Obama but his constant desire to prove how good he is and what odds he has overcome are beyond annoying.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s major issue seems to be fighting domestic poverty. Wait? A domestic issue being a priority? How strange that we would deal with our own problems before attacking another country to tell them how to run the country. I love this priority of his. He has a desire to create a better life for the less fortunate with a series of initiatives including universal health care. (I highly recommend Michael Moore’s Sicko to illuminate this problem.)

Obama has plans for fixing Dubya’s mess in the Middle East. Not because he wants to but because he has to. Obama’s website says:

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq.

Okay. I agree with that too. Why do I hate this guy? Oh yeah, the Jesus thing.

Obama also defines what he would like to do about Global Climate Change. In response to this Obama says:

We need to take steps to stop catastrophic, manmade climate change. If we do not act, the consequences will be devastating for future generations, especially for the poorest global populations. Barack Obama believes the U.S. must act decisively and creatively to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Obama is an original cosponsor of legislation to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gases, rewarding cost-effective approaches through a system of tradeable allowances. Revenues generated from this program will be directed to helping industries and individuals most affected by the limits, and also to fund research and development of new, more efficient, energy technologies.

Obama’s stance on illegal immigration is not in line with mine. I see no problems with undocumented workers doing our dirty work to make a buck for their families. But nonetheless I understand some possible problems with that. Obama’s plan seems downright conservative. But at least he doesn’t really want to kick them out, just have them “pay a fine, learn English, not commit crimes, go to the back of the line for citizenship, and then after all those conditions are met, they would be granted the opportunity to stay in the United States.” I’ll live with it but I don’t agree. 3 for 1.

Another thing I like about Obama is his desire to hold the Bush administration accountable for their criminality. He also has a strong desire to get rid of the political divide in America and have a more open, reasonable government. I really doubt Obama will get on the Democratic ticket. At least as president. He may end up a VP. Because, as I have expressed, I believe Americans are desperate for change. But just a little bit. Not the whole pie at once. Just a slice. Obama is probably about 3 slices. And it is probably for the better. The issues are all there. I support many of them. I just don’t think I can handle the ego of Obama. But we shall see.

50% chance of getting the nomination

Iraq in Photos

2007-07-04T16:34:00.001-04:00

Happy Independence Day

What the Fuck is "Commuting"?

2007-07-02T18:32:00.000-04:00

Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11658207

NPR.org, July 2, 2007 · President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Mr. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years' probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

The president's move came hours after the federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Libby had hoped that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would put his sentence on hold because he believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal. The court unanimously rejected the request.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons had not yet assigned Libby to a prison or given him a date to surrender, but last week it designated him as federal inmate No. 28301-016.

After the court's ruling, Libby's attorneys did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Libby's supporters, who raised millions of dollars for his defense fund, had immediately renewed the call for a pardon.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby's defense fund, said after the ruling. "It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

No one was charged with leaking Valerie Plame's identity, but Libby was convicted of lying about his conversations with reporters regarding the operative.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

Issues: Global Climate Change

2007-07-01T21:07:00.000-04:00

To clear something up right away, Global Warming is a very misleading term that gives the wrong impression. I don't know anybody who wouldn't mind a few extra degrees in the winter or whats a few more once you reach 90? But a temperature increase is not the only or perhaps most devastating of the effects of Global Climate Change. Some areas may actually decrease in temperature while others will recieve drastic changes in precipitation or wind strength or other natural disasters. This will cause untold disasters to people and animals all over the world.

My biggest question for the folks who chose to believe that Global Climate Change is not real is this: Even if it isn't, what harm can come from being environmentally friendly? Don't give me economy - our economy will just change. And hell who couldn't use a little less foreign oil (and wars fought in it's name)? I have chosen to make some personal changes to my life that allow me to contribute to this adjustment and NEWSFLASH - it is not hard and is maybe even a little enjoyable to know that you are doing a little bit to help our planet. And I hope, with more money, to do more - buy a hybrid, become vegan (I'm currently a vegetarian), buy new, environmentally friendly appliances. And if you are currently able to afford these things - what are you waiting for?

None of these other issues are of any importance if we have no world to live in. So get started.

Issues: Iraq

2007-06-30T17:04:00.000-04:00

NO MORE WAR!

Issues: Abortion

2007-06-29T12:48:00.000-04:00

The conservative stance on abortion is one of the most confusing and most backwards of what they stand for. And you could actually say that I am the most pro-life person there is. If it is life it should not be killed. Let me explain.

Conservatives have turned the debate over abortion and stem cell research into some kind of murder trial as if we are just harvesting babies to then slaughter. A sperm cell is not a person. Neither is an ovum. When they meet they have the potential to create a person but there is still a long way to go before a person is created. The DNA instructions are there but parts of a thing do not make up a thing. Is a foot a person? Is a spine a person? No, they are parts of a human being but not actually a human being. So therefore, an embryo is not a person. Abortion is moral.

Why the conservatives are so wrong about their pro life stance is that they have absolutely no problem killing innocent lives, and unquestionably life, in war. And also have no problem with the death penalty that may have carried out executions of potentially innocent people. I do not believe that a person should ever have to suffer death as a punishment for someone else's decision. So I am pro life. But an embryo up to a certain point is not a person so can ethically be terminated before full gestation.

One major problem with abortion being illegal is the growing number of unhappy and therefore bad parents. This leads to poor performances from children - our future adults. This also leads to a growth in foster children - something very much unnecessary in our already bursting foster care facilities. Be reasonable. For those who say it will emotionally scare the mother to have an abortion I say, "Oh well at least you didn't harm two people in the process." One injury is better than two last time I checked. Of course the best option is for no injury. Therefore, abstinance education and safe sex practice is essential for young people.

Bush "disappointed"

2007-06-28T13:02:00.000-04:00

Immigration Bill Dies on Floor of Senate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11502047

NPR.org, June 28, 2007 · Senate opponents have succeeded in stopping a bill to give legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, making it unlikely that the issue will be decided until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the measure, which had critics in both parties.

Conservatives said it gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, while Democrats said fees associated with obtaining visas were too high and decried a provision lessening the weight given to family ties.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year when the presidential election will be a key focus of both parties.

A similar effort collapsed in Congress last year, prompting the House to wait on Senate action before tackling the issue again.

The bill's defeat was a stinging rebuke for President Bush, who personally worked with Congressional leaders to obtain their support. The president has acknowledged that the compromise proposal was not perfect, but he said it was necessary to secure the borders and curb illegal immigration.

In a brief statement, the president told reporters he was "disappointed" by the vote.

Looking ahead to the next session legislative session, Bush said Congress "needs to prove to the American people" that it can work together for the common good.

Thursday's vote was a victory for Republican conservatives, who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

Above the Law (again)

2007-06-28T10:23:00.000-04:00

White House Refuses Congressional Subpoenas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11502745

NPR.org, June 28, 2007 · The White House on Thursday rejected Congressional subpoenas for documents that could shed light on the decision to fire a number of federal prosecutors, asserting executive privilege.

President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House will not give up the documents of former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path, which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege."

The White House also made it clear that Miers and Taylor will not testify next month, as directed in the June 13 subpoenas. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.

On the other hand, Fielding said Bush "was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.
"The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch," Fielding said.

"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," Fielding said.

"Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas," Fielding said. "Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue."

It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December, 2001, to rebuff Congress' demands for Clinton administration documents. in federal court over separation of powers.

Tensions between the administration and the Democratic-run Congress have been building for months as the House and Senate Judiciary panels have sought to probe the firings of eight federal prosecutors and the administration's program of warrantless eavesdropping. The investigations are part of the Democrats' efforts to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Democrats say the firings of the prosecutors over the winter was an example of improper political influence. The White House says U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be hired and fired for almost any reason.

Democrats and even some key Republicans have said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign over the U.S. attorney dismissals, but he has steadfastly held his ground and Bush has backed him.

Just Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, demanding documents pertaining to terrorism-era warrant-free eavesdropping.

Separately, that panel also is summoning Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters - including the prosecutor firings - that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.

Leahy, the committee's chairman, raised questions Wednesday about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.

"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Backwards Bush Clock

2007-06-27T16:11:00.001-04:00

Tricky Dick II

2007-06-27T15:50:00.000-04:00

Senate Panel Subpoenas White House on Wiretaps
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11471824

June 27, 2007 · The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office on Wednesday to obtain documents relating to the Bush administration's program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. According to a statement by Leahy's office, the four parties have until July 18 to comply with the subpoena demands.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said a letters accompanying the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

From The Associated Press

Candidates: John McCain

2007-06-27T14:09:00.000-04:00

I’ve always had a casual interest in John McCain. He’s a very frequent guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart which is a program I’ve come to watch religiously in the last few years. He is one of the rare dudes on the right who actually shows his ass up on that program. And that takes some guts. And not only does he not struggle with it like John Kerry when talking about Iraq, he seems to really be comfortable conversing with Stewart.

This seems to be one of the only things that separates him from the Republicans. He holds very standard conservative views about Iraq – our most important issue. He believes victory must be accomplished in Iraq and more troops will be necessary to accomplish this. He is very concerned about fair treatment of war prisoners (understandably) and the troops, but my biggest concern is with the people caught in between. The innocent victims of war - Iraqi citizens and the families and friends of the victims of this pointless war. Victory can’t be accomplished with innocent lives being harmed. Ever. We need a plan to get out. Yeah, soldiers die. Yeah, extremist morons die. But they have to be expecting it with their lifestyle choices. When a mother looses her only child to Dubya’s war we’ve already lost.

Iraq also takes away from our need to fix all of our domestic problems that are so numerous.

McCain wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give that power to the states. Ok. I’m not too concerned. Abortion is moral and this can be philosophically proven but we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Along with this he takes Bush’s view that we shouldn’t use embryos for stem cell research which doesn’t make any sense to me but is true with his morals on the creation of life. Both are fundamental arguments with a basis in religion. I am not religious but also not currently in need of an abortion or stem cells. Since it doesn’t concern me I’ll let those it affects decide.

Border security does affect me. Because Mexicans allow this country to run. They do the shitty jobs we don’t want to do because they are trying to put food in the mouths of their family. As far as the terrorism argument – last I checked we were dealing with fundamentalist Islam not Catholic Mexicans who not only pose no threat to this country but actually allow it to function.

I do like McCain’s stance on global climate change. At least he admits it exists unlike the President who seems to have his fingers in his ears as he sticks out his tongue to almost 100% of environmental scientists. Global climate change is an extremely real and important issue. It is safe to say that I will never give my support to a candidate without a serious plan to deal with this.

McCain also believes that the government spends too much money on frivolous projects. While this may be true to a certain extent, a lot of these projects may be necessary for our development and understanding of the world. While I am not at this time clear on the projects the government chooses to support I will not make further comment on this issue.

McCain certainly focuses on many other issues. These seems to be the major ones and ones of importance to me. I plan on doing issue posts in the future on some more minor issues addressed by the candidates. My overall impression of McCain has changed since he originally announced he would be running. Except on a few issues, he differs very little than most of the extreme conservative candidates and Bush himself. Because change is necessary for America, it seems very unlikely that he will take the presidency.

60% chance of nomination

The Old, Hairy, White Men...

2007-06-27T11:59:00.000-04:00

...and a woman and a black dude. But still old. And hairy. These are who we have to pick from in our next presidential election. I haven't been all that interested in the debates and candidates until recently. I frankly find it a bit lethargic this early. But then I realized the hope that some of these folks offer for the future of America. And suddenly I feel optimistic for the first time in six years. I will be researching the candidates over the course of the year and posting my analysis of each right here. I believe that Americans are desperate for some of kind of change to their country so the winner will reflect this. Not to say it will be Madam President or Jesus Obama - too much change too soon. America won't have any part of that. But they'll stll get their profile and analysis. In the end I will pick the candidate that will be right for correcting the future of the United States not to make me selfishly happy. Hell, I supported Carol Mosely Braun. But that wasn't going to happen. The first profile will be up shortly.

What Took You So Long?

2007-06-26T21:33:00.000-04:00

Poll: GOP support for Iraq war beginning to waver

By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/26/poll.iraq.schneider/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low. Not only that, but Republican support is beginning to waver.

President Bush's troop buildup, or "surge," meant to quell the sectarian violence is now in place.
"The final surge was just completed in the last 10 days," Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said Sunday.

What happens now? "Come September, we'll have to see how they're doing and we'll have to make an assessment," Lott said. (Watch Schneider report the poll results )

But the public is already making an assessment, and it's not good. In the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 69 percent of those polled believe things are going badly in Iraq. Seventeen percent think the situation is improving. (View the latest poll results)

Thirty percent of Americans polled say they favor the war, the lowest level of support on record. Two-thirds are opposed.

Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war.

Moreover, 63 percent of Americans are ready to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. Forty-two percent of Republicans agree.

Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified. (Read the complete poll results document -- PDF)

The telephone poll of 1,029 adult Americans was conducted between June 22 and 24, 2007, and has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

President Bush has always relied on solid Republican support for his Iraq policy. When Congress voted in April to impose a timetable for withdrawal, only two Republicans in the House and two in the Senate voted for the bill. Two-hundred-forty Republicans voted against timetables.
But there are some other cracks starting to show in the Republican wall of support -- most dramatically Monday when Republican Sen. Dick Lugar rose to speak in the Senate. (Watch Lugar call for a new direction for the Iraq war )

"I speak to my fellow senators when I say that the president is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking," Lugar said.
Lugar's assessment: "In my judgment, the costs and risk of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved." (Full story)

The Senate Democratic leader said Lugar's remarks may be a turning point. "But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand that Sen. Lugar took, a courageous stand," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Are they? Among Democrats polled over the last four months, opposition to the war has remained nearly unanimous -- more than 90 percent opposed. About two-thirds of independents have also held steady against the war.

What's changed is Republicans. A growing number appear ready to follow Lugar's lead.

My Turn to Bitch

2007-06-26T20:40:00.000-04:00

This blog is my attempt to add to the endless world of Bush blogs in cyberspace. Not only to bitch and moan but to provide comfort that there is a light at the end of this terrible, terrible tunnel known as the Bush administration. It will take place on January 20, 2009 - 1.20.09 - when our newest president will be inaugurated. AND IT WON'T BE DUBYA OR QUICKDRAW! I'll also use this as an attempt to further my own research into the current presidential candidates to eventually pick the best candidate to fix this hell hole called America. And as far as I can tell they're all better than the Decider. Even the God-apointed Republicans. I'll be posting shortly. Whenever I feel particularly pissed off. So like I said, shortly. I welcome your comments.