More Bush Mistakes: Is there no end to them?

Is there no aspect of our world and our lives that Bush does not try to control?

Scientists allege White House pressure

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. scientists felt pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

Not even science is sacred enough to be safe from the strangling grip of Bush. When is way more than enough going to be enough to get rid of this guy? He has lost all trust. He has ruined our good standing in the world. He has hurt our ecology. He has hurled us into trillions of dollars of debt. He lied us into a long, expensive, unethical, and deadly war. He has been wrong about EVERYTHING.

And he has been trying to discredit science. SCIENCE! And why? For polictics. For greed. And he is shameless about it all. For the past six years of his presidency and beyond that, Bush has denied global warming as a fact and denied that humans were the cause.

Now, this week, we are expecting a report from 2,500 scientists from all over the world on global warming and the damage it will do for the next 1,000 years, and Bush in his State of the Union address merely mentioned "climate change." He mentions it now that the effects of global warming are being seen and seven-tenths of Americans say global warming is a "serious issue." Kicking and screaming all the way, he mentions it. A mention is no where near the apology he should give or the actions he should take.

This is the same modus operandi with all of Bush's mistakes: Deny, deny, deny, and then, late in the game, when overwhelmed by public opinion, admit a mistake or two, but never apologize or rectify.

Here is another issue that liberals and progressives have been talking about for a long time that the mainstream media is finally reporting:

Investigators: Millions in Iraq Aid Wasted

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

[...]

According to the report, the State Department paid $43.8 million to contractor DynCorp International for the residential camp for police training personnel outside of Baghdad's Adnan Palace grounds that has stood empty for months. About $4.2 million of the money was improperly spent on 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size pool, all ordered by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior but never authorized by the U.S.

U.S. officials spent another $36.4 million for weapons such as armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment that can't be accounted for. DynCorp also may have prematurely billed $18 million in other potentially unjustified costs, the report said.

(Read the whole article for more outrages like how the previous, Republican-controlled Congress tried to prevent reports like this by firing Bowen.)

The point is: Bush is a loser. He ran three Texas oil companies into bankruptcy, and he is running our country in to bankruptcy as well. He lost the popular vote in 2000, and only became president because the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida. He lost Osama bin Laden. He is losing in Iraq. He was the first president since Hoover to lose more jobs than create jobs during his first term. He is losing the middle class. He is losing his popularity in the polls, and the only reason he had any popularity to lose was because of the solidarity that followed 9/11. He would have lost his re-election in 2004 if it was not for 9/11. He lost his party's control over both houses of Congress in 2006. He lost on social security reform. The man is such a loser, he could be a cooler in Las Vegas.

He is such a loser that I cannot understand how anyone can take him or any of his ideas seriously anymore. Obviously, I think he needs to go... now. He should resign or be impeached. If neither occurs, then we need to listen to all of his ideas and then just do the opposite of whatever he suggests because, president or not, we should not be following this loser.

Let us start with what he said yesterday:

Bush promotes his free trade initiatives

EAST PEORIA, Illinois: With U.S. Democrats making the case that his economic policies have benefited the rich more than the middle class, President George W. Bush struck back on Tuesday, in the first of back-to-back speeches promoting what the White House characterizes as 41 consecutive months of economic growth.

Bush came here to East Peoria, home to Caterpillar, the world's biggest manufacturer of earth-moving equipment, to advance his free trade initiatives and press Democrats to make his tax cuts permanent. On Wednesday, he heads to New York's financial district to deliver a more formal "State of the Economy" address at Federal Hall, where he is expected to ask Congress to extend his authority to negotiate trade agreements that cannot be amended.

Right there, bad ideas. We need to do the opposite of those suggestions. To begin balancing the budget, we must let the tax cuts expire, and we definitely should not give him the power to negotiate trade agreements especially when they cannot be amended.

"The temptation is to say, well, trade may not be worth it, let's isolate ourselves, let's protect ourselves," Bush told a friendly audience of Caterpillar employees, standing against a backdrop of gigantic tractors in the company's familiar colors of yellow and black.

Okay, that is not a suggestion, but it is still incredibly stupid.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE is tempted to say "trade may not be worth it" or "let's isolate ourselves." That is just an asinine statement and a strawman argument.

"Americans wonder, can you compete in a global economy?" Bush said, before answering himself. "My answer is, darn right, you can."

Again, this is not a suggestion, but, again, it is incredibly stupid so I feel compelled to say something.

Americans do not wonder if we can "compete in a global economy," and Bush must be an idiot if he really believes that we do. The reason that we do not wonder if we can "compete in a global economy" is because we compete in a global ecomnomy EVERY DAY as we have done since our inception.

The Decider or the Decision Maker or whatever he is calling himself now decided to drive one of Caterpillar's tractors while he was in East Peoria.

While the president was busy driving, the freshman Democrat who represents the district next door was busy issuing a press release arguing that Bush was ignoring the financial condition of his constituents. The congressman, Representative Phil Hare, who worked as an aide to his predecessor before winning election in November, pointed to another Illinois community, Galesburg, where he said free trade treaties "drove 1,600 good-paying Maytag jobs" to Sonora, Mexico.

Ah, and therein lies the reason why Bush is wrong on free trade. NAFTA was passed because of lies. It was a lie that NAFTA would protect American jobs. It is a lie that free trade is good for everyone. It is not. It is good for the rich and bad for the poor (which is what Bush seems to base his policies on).

Fair trade is the right alternative. It is good for everyone. It is fair to everyone. It does not make the insanely rich grotesquely richer while exploiting the poor. It lifts everyone up. It is the American ideal.

And Bush is against fair trade, so we should be 100% for it so that we do not make the mistake of allowing Bush to make more mistakes.

Germany Prosecutes Bush Policy

Germany issues CIA arrest orders

Germany has ordered the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents over the alleged kidnapping of one of its citizens.
Munich prosecutors confirmed that the warrants were linked to the case of Khaled al-Masri, a German national of Lebanese descent.

Mr Masri says he was seized in Macedonia, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan and mistreated there.

He says he was released in Albania five months later when the Americans realised they had the wrong man.

This and the case of Canadian Maher Arar are examples of the evil the Bush administration is doing in our name. The election last November was a good start, but we need to continuously clarify to the White House that we do not want this. We do not want extraordinary rendition done in our name. We do not want torture done for our "protection." We do not want our good name and honor brought down anymore by the evil practices and crimes of the Bush administrations.

Thankfully, Germany is taking steps to prosecute one of these crimes. We need to do likewise in our own country.

No Man Is Above The Law

Apparently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thinks that the Bush administration can break the law and then not suffer any consequences because they said they stopped breaking the law. (Remember; they have not proved that they have stopped breaking the law. They just said that they stopped breaking the law.)

Anti-terror program subject of constitutional arguments

CINCINNATI (AP) — President Bush's program of secretly monitoring communications without a court warrant faces legal assaults on its constitutionality in arguments Wednesday before a federal appeals court.

The government is appealing the ruling of a federal district judge in Detroit who said the warrantless surveillance violated rights of privacy and free speech as well as separation of powers. The Justice Department last week urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the case, saying it no longer was at issue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this month that the secret panel of judges who oversee the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by Congress in 1978, now is reviewing and approving applications to monitor people believed to have terrorist links. The Justice Department said in a court brief that means there's "no longer any live genuine controversy to adjudicate."

No longer any controversy to adjudicate?!

A continuous crime was being committed by the Bush Administration, and now, simply because they say they stopped continually committing that crime, there is no longer any controversy?! That is insane and illogical. Gonzales has to be crazy to argue that.

Could you imagine if a serial killer made the same argument? "Oh, I stopped killing people, so there's no need to prosecute me for my past murders."

They lost this case once, and now they are appealing to have this case thrown out based on this ridiculous, illogical idea.

"For all the drama around the case, we see the ultimate legal issue to be a very narrow, noncontroversial one — that is, when Congress passes a law, the president has to follow it," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney on the case. "If they were really committed to following the FISA law in the future, they should have no objection to being bound by the district court order."

This is all very simple. Congress creates the law, the White House obeys and enforces the law, and the Supreme Court judges the law. The concept is simple. It is what we base our government upon. It is how our government works. Everyone from the fifth grade up understands this concept except the Bush administration.

They have done everything to try to usurp the power of the other two branches of government. If they do not like a law they change it, ignore it, or rule it unconstitutional, but that is not their job. They do not have those powers, and yet because of the inefficacy and corruption of the 107th, the 108th, and the 109th Congress, no one was there to stop the White House from taking those powers.

Fortunately, now that there is a new sheriff Congress in town, the Bush administration's attempt to turn our country into a dictatorship is at an end. Even if it is late, it is better late than never.

Hopefully, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will not find any merit in Gonzales' illogical argument and help defend our country from would-be dictators like George W. Bush.

Soulless Republicans Vote To Eliminate Minimum Wage

Well, the Republicans have reached a new low.

First, they decided to deny what 80% of Americans want: the minimum wage to be raised. Then, they tried to eliminate the federal minimum wage entirely.

While the Democrats in the Senate have been trying to overcome the Republican filibuster of a bill to raise the minimum wage (which has not been raised in over a decade), 28 Republicans decided that it was a good time to try to repeal the federal minimum wage.

Senate GOP Leadership Tries To Eliminate Federal Minimum Wage

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), evidently convinced that he was beating a dead horse by continuing his quest to ban flag-burning and discriminate against gay people, announced this month that he would not seek reelection in 2008 and the thought of having so little time left to screw the working poor from a comfy U.S. Senate seat must have just been eating him alive.

Allard, who has voted against a minimum wage increase more often than Fox News smears Barack Obama, went for broke this week and introduced a bill that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely and left the wage rate for the lowest-paid workers to each state.

In Kansas, this would mean that workers would revert to the state-mandated minimum wage of $2.65 per hour, which is currently superseded by the federal minimum of $5.15.

So who are these 28 Republican Senators who seem to dislike minimum wage earners so much? Who are these senators who think minimum wage earners deserve a pay cut more than a pay raise? Bob Geiger calls them out:

Who Wanted To Eliminate The Federal Minimum Wage?

Here's the Republican Senators who voted for the measure killed in the Senate yesterday that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely:

Alexander (R-TN)

Allard (R-CO)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hatch (R-UT)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lott (R-MS)

McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)

Sununu (R-NH)

Thomas (R-WY)

For the record, those running for reelection in 2008 are Alexander, Bennett, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Enzi, Graham, Hagel, Inhofe, McConnell and Sununu.

Oh, and that guy McCain is probably running for president and Brownback definitely is.

I would also like to add that some of these Senators, like Sen. Hatch, Sen. Ensign, and Sen. Kyl were just re-elected in November. So Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, are you happy now? Unfortunately, you will probably forget their reprehensible votes by the time they are up for re-election in six years.

Hopefully, people like me will be there to remind everyone that when each of these 28 Senators is up for re-election that they do not support the Americans they work for, and that they deserve to be fired. If they are fired, I suggest they find a nice minimum wage job and dicover for themselves what it is like to make less than the cost of living.

Why Hasn't Bush Succeeded In Iraq?

Apparently Bush forgot to tell our military forces in Iraq to succeed:

The decider

Sorry. This doesn't make me feel better.

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Apparently, Iraq is a mess because Bush hadn't gotten around to telling the generals it "had to" work. But now that he has, all's well that ends well.

Now shut up and clap louder!

Update: Aravosis has Pelosi's response to Bush's inanity, as told by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

PELOSI: He's tried this two times — it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?'

BUSH: Because I told them it had to.

PELOSI: Why didn't you tell them that the other two times?

Taking Global Warming Seriously

It was apparent to me in this year's State of the Union speech (and in pretty much all his speeches) that Bush does not take the threat of Global Warming seriously. Well, there have been more than enough reasons to take it seriously, and now here is the latest:

Warming to raise seas for 1,000 years: U.N. draft

OSLO (Reuters) - World sea levels will keep rising for more than 1,000 years even if governments manage to slow a projected surge in temperatures this century blamed on greenhouse gases, a draft U.N. climate report says.

The study, by a panel of 2,500 scientists who advise the United Nations, also says that dust from volcanic eruptions and air pollution seems to have braked warming in recent decades by reflecting sunlight back into space, scientific sources said.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its report, the most complete overview of climate change science, in Paris on February 2 after a final review. It will guide policy makers combating global warming.

I look forward to the full report next week. I hope Bush and those in our government will take it seriously.

Not News

This is something we have known for a long time, but it has taken a court trial to get the mainstream media to report it:

Aide: VP, Libby targeted Iraq critic

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney and his former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were personally and actively involved in an effort to spin news coverage and discredit a critic of the Iraq war even before the fact that his wife was a CIA operative became public, a senior White House official testified Thursday.

The White House attacked Joe Wilson's wife because Wilson said that Bush was lying about his justifications for the war in Iraq. The White House betrayed our country by outing Wilson's wife as a covert CIA agent to defend their political lies to start an illegal war.

Justice must be served. They need to pay for their crimes. Hopefully, this trial will be the first domino that causes all the others to fall.

Bush's "Libary"

Not suprisingly, there were not a lot of bids to host the George W. Bush Presidential Library, and the last bidder is having some problems:

Bush library an embarrassment?

Out of Dallas today comes odd news that some of the faculty at Southern Methodist University – alma mater of First Lady Laura Bush and sole finalist in the bidding for the location of the George W. Bush Presidential Library – worry that the new library could damage the university’s reputation, and some are demanding a referendum.

Apparently they are worried about academic freedom in the midst of a new big-money institute attached to the library conducting political research there some day. And then there is that group of Methodist ministers who have mounted an online petition drive in an attempt to convince SMU to drop its plans for the presidential library -- “as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate.’’

Many in SMU's faculty are against the proposal. Many Methodist ministers are against it.

I personally feel Bush does not deserve a library, but is it actually possible that he won't get one because no one wants it? With all his rich friends and supporters, that seems unlikely, but it would be so poignantly funny.

Teacher Framed By Computer

This story is just unbelievable:

Substitute Teacher Faces Jail Time Over Spyware

A 40-year-old former substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing prison time following her conviction for endangering students by exposing them to pornographic material displayed on a classroom computer.

[...]

I had a chance this week to speak with the accused, Windham, Conn., resident Julie Amero. Amero described herself as the kind of person who can hardly find the power button on a computer, saying she often relies on written instructions from her husband explaining how to access e-mail, sign into instant messaging accounts and other relatively simple tasks.

[...]

The case came to trial this month, and computer expert W. Herbert Horner testified for the defense that the images were the result of incessant pop-up ads served by spyware on the classroom computer.

[...]

I spoke briefly with Amero's attorney, who said: "I sincerely believe that had we been allowed to present our testimony in full, Julie would not have been convicted. This is a grave miscarriage of justice."

The full article goes into much more detail. It seems pretty obvious to me, as it should be obvious to those with a basic understanding of computers, that this teacher is innocent.

This poor, unfortunate teacher was convicted because of spyware and pop-up adds that she had no control over and the judges lack of comprehension of how these malicious programs work. Hopefully, sanity will prevail, and this conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Everytime They Lie, We Need To Refute

I was not going to write a post on this issue, but the rightwing liars keep bringing it up. Everytime they lie, we need to refute their lies. Otherwise, they get away with it like the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth Lies.

Their lies about Kerry's service in Viet Nam helped the worst president in US history win an undeserved second term. That is something we are paying for now and future generations will have to pay for it as well.

Never again.

Never again can we let lies, deceit, and fraud decide an election because we know all too well the consequences. The consequences are in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in our national debt, in our economy, and in our environment.

Now they are spreading lies about Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, and we need to cut off the lies before they grow any bigger.

CNN Debunks Obama “Madrassa” Smear

Surprise, surprise. Despite the right-wing's irresponsible and baseless rumormongering about Hillary Clinton "exposing" Barack Obama's "covered up" childhood at an Indonesian madrassa (where he was presumably indoctrinated in extremist Muslim teachings), it turns out that none of it is even remotely truthful. After checking out the veracity of the story — you know, a basic tenet of Journalism 101 — CNN blows the lid off of what a spokesman for Senator Clinton called "an obvious right-wing hit job."

The only thing this story "exposes" is the anatomy of a right-wing hit job: Conservative Insight magazine runs an unverified story that the minions at FOX News then cite to smear politicians they don't like. And when it blows up in their faces, they claim they were just citing a source and wipe their hands clean. That's how right-wing "journalism" works.

Go to Crooksandliars.com. Watch or read the CNN story. Educate yourself. The 2008 election may be far into the future, but it is being decided in the present.

Good Idea, Bad Idea, Worse Idea

Good Idea: Stopping global warming by weening us off of fossil fuels and using green energy

Bad Idea: Ignoring the threat of global warming and doing nothing

Worse Idea: Ethanol

That is, by itself, ethanol is a worse idea.

Bush talked about ethanol in the State of the Union Address as he has before, but while talking about ethanol may drive up prices for corn, it does not really address the issues for which we need an alternative fuel sources.

Energy experts knock Bush plan for ethanol as gas substitute
They say it would be costly and inefficient and might force choice: corn for food or fuel

[...]

The vast majority of ethanol comes from corn. But diesel fuel powers the tractors that tend corn fields, natural gas runs the distilleries that produce ethanol, and more diesel is used to ship the finished product to market. The power you get out of corn ethanol, in other words, might just barely beat the power you put into it.

Scientists have argued for years about how much of a net power gain corn ethanol provides, some insisting that it consumes more than it produces. The federal government, for its part, estimates that ethanol gives about 1.6 units of energy for every unit that goes in. But even some researchers who agree say that the fuel doesn't provide much benefit in the end and that the nation shouldn't rely too heavily upon it to the detriment of other biofuels.

[...]

The relatively minor amount of ethanol now made -- about 5 billion gallons per year -- already consumes about 12 to 15 percent of the nation's corn crop. At some point, producing more would force the country to balance its need for fuel with its need for food.

Food is sort of the reason that most of us use fuel. We use fuel to drive to work to make money to buy food to eat to live. Trading food for fuel defeats the purpose.

There is an argument to be made for for biodiesel, but that has problems too.

The president specifically mentioned biodiesel as one alternative that could help wean America off oil. The fuel, which has been around literally as long as diesel engines, is twice as energy efficient as corn ethanol and can be made from a wide variety of natural, renewable sources, such as new and used vegetable oils and animal fats. But its use in the United States remains small, despite recent growth.

Federal estimates project that within 10 to 15 years, the country could churn out 10 billion gallons of biodiesel annually, compared to roughly 75 million gallons in 2005. But the nation now uses 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel each year and will need far more in the future. Biodiesel, in other words, probably can't make the kind of big dent in oil consumption that Bush wants.

Also, burning ethanol and biodiesel still produces carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas which adds to global warming. At least, ethanol and biodiesel are considered to be "renewable" energy which is much better than fossil fuels, but it is not clear to me whether their usage would still slightly increase CO2 levels, slightly reduce CO2 levels, or keep CO2 levels the more or less the same.

Whatever the case, dramatically reducing CO2 levels should be our main goal in our energy policy. We should be researching and developing solar, wind, tidal, and magnetic energy which do not emit CO2 and additionally and importantly do not emit pollution.

No Shame

Apparently, the US Government has no shame over mistaking Canandian Maher Arar for a terrorist and sending him to Syria to be tortured.

US ambassador slams Canada for pushing to have Arar taken off watch list

EDMONTON (CP) - American Ambassador David Wilkins has bluntly told Canada to back off in its efforts to have Maher Arar removed from the U.S. security watch list, saying Canada wouldn't stand for it if the situation were reversed.

[...]

A Canadian inquiry exonerated Arar last fall and concluded RCMP gave U.S. authorities misleading information before he was deported, held and tortured for more than a year in a Syrian jail.

So we are responsible for sending Arar to another country to be tortured because our government wrongly thought he was a terrorist, and even though he has been exonerated, we are not going to take him off our watch list. We were wrong, and Arar was tortured because we were wrong, and now he is on our watch list because we were wrong. Arar is suing the US Government for the horrible things that happened to him because of the US Government's mistake, but he probably won't even be allowed in our country to seek justice. Cue the Twilight Zone theme music.

Wag The Dog

Remember when Clinton launched missiles against Iraq during the Lewinsky scandal, and all the right-wingers cried "Wag the dog!" because, according to their logic, a president cannot walk and chew gum at the same time? So I am sure (but I'm not going to hold my breath) that they will likewise claim that Bush is "wagging the dog" with all these air strikes in Somalia Bush is using to "distract" us from his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan:

U.S. conducts second strike in Somalia: officials

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States launched a second air strike against Islamic extremists in war-torn southern Somalia this week, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The United States launched an air strike about two weeks ago against what officials then said were al Qaeda operatives.

The target of the second strike was unclear, but some officials indicated it was likely an al Qaeda operative. They would not say which day the strike occurred but it was this week.

On the other hand, Bush usually likes to brag about his military efforts so why are they being so secretive about this.

"We're going to go after al Qaeda and the global war on terror, wherever it takes us," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

"The very nature of some of our operations are not conducive to public discussions and there will be times when there are activities and operations that I can talk to you about and there will be other times when I just won't have anything for you," he said. "I don't have anything for you on Somalia."

[...]

While speculation has increased that the United States has personnel on the ground in Somalia, U.S. officials have declined to confirm or deny such reports.

I don't trust the Bush administration when they open their mouths, but I trust them even less when their mouths stay closed. I am all for fighting the War on Terror, but the Bush Administration has not been fighting it properly. They have lied to us or been wrong about everything else, so forgive me if I am skeptical about their secretive activities in Somalia. This is something we (this means you, Congress) should hold oversight on.

Cheney's State Of Denial

Dick Cheney was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday.

Cheney dismisses Iraq criticism as "hogwash"

Cheney was asked about the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union speech, in which Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia declared: "The president took us into this war recklessly. ... We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."

Cheney, also questioned about the impression of a credibility problem over Iraq, replied: "I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

Well, I guess that settles it. Any criticism of the war in Iraq is "hogwash." I guess we all better just pack it up an go home. We shouldn't bother writing blogs or columns. All critics of the war who are in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, should just resign, right? Why don't we just set up Bush as a dictator since pointing out how badly he and his administration have managed the war in Iraq is just going to be dismissed as "hogwash"?

Cheney's condescension is outright insulting. He is living in a permanent state of denial, so this attitude is not surprising, but if he cannot deal with the mistakes that he and Bush have made in an serious and honest manner, then there is no point in interviewing him. He just lies and denies.

"Now, the critics have not suggested a policy ... All they want to do, all they've recommended, is to redeploy or to withdraw our forces," he said.

Here is another blantant lie, that Blitzer let slip by. The ISG suggested many ideas for dealing with Iraq, and Bush and Cheney ignored all of their recommendations. I think it was Sen. Biden who suggested a plan for dividing Iraq into a three-part federation. There have been many suggestions, and, in the media, Bush's hired liars repeatedly claim that the critics have not "suggested a policy" or that they should come up with a plan of their own if they do not like Bush's "new" strategy. Time and time again, these plans our brought up, and Bush and his minions ignore them and then lie by saying they do not exist. It is maddening.

Cheney also offered this gem:

Cheney was put on the defensive from the start of the interview when he was asked about the U.S. military's failure to take out Osama bin Laden: "Why can't you find this guy?"

Cheney said, "Well, obviously, he's well hidden."

THAT IS YOUR EXCUSE FOR NOT FINDING BIN LADEN! ARE YOU INSANE?

Seriously, the biggest failure of the Bush Administration has been their inablility to capture that mass murderer, and that they are so nonchalant about it adds so much insult to injury. There is NO excuse for failing to capture Osama bin Laden! It has been FIVE AND A HALF YEARS, and the best Cheney has to offer is "he's well hidden." Everday with Bush and Cheney in office has been like an episode of The Twilight Zone.

They have no excuse for not capturing bin Laden, and Bush promised we would get him "dead or alive." If Bush had not been so busy becoming a war criminal and making the entire world hate us with his idiotic, unethical, illegal, unnecessary war in Iraq, we probably would have caught bin Laden long before now.

"Well hidden"?! Unbelievable! Absolutely, unbelievable. What do they expect bin Laden to do? Have a bunch of signs pointing to his secret hideout like in some Bugs Bunny cartoon?

Ugh, they make me so angry with this stupidity! It makes me think that they do not really want to capture bin Laden because they do not want to lose the only thing that keeps them in power: bin Laden being free. If bin Laden was imprisoned or executed, then there would be nothing left for Bush and Cheney to use to scare Americans into obedience. Then there would be nothing to hold back the floodgates that are starting to break regardless. The subpoenas and indictments are coming, and soon Bush and Cheney won't even be able to hide behind bin Laden anymore.

Well, I always feel better after a nice rant, but before I finish this post, I want to mention one other thing that happened in the interview:

Cheney treated like others, angry about it

The vice president got a bit testy with Wolf Blitzer on CNN when the journalist asked him a question about his daughter, her partner, and their upcoming addition to the family:

In a wide-ranging interview, where he was unusually testy in several instances, Cheney got steamed when CNN's Wolf Blitzer read him a comment from Focus on the Family, a social-conservative group that believes it's not best for a child to be raised by single-sex parents, like Mary Cheney and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

"I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question," Cheney fumed.

Before Blitzer could explain his question, Cheney interrupted the anchor of the "Situation Room" and again snapped, "I think you're out of line with that question."

Blitzer then spoke kindly of Mary Cheney and insisted his question wasn't personal, just business. "Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up and it's a responsible, fair question," Blitzer said.

Cheney acts insulted and attacked when someone mentions his daughter Mary, but really he is just a coward and a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite because he is willing to attack thousands of family members by starting an illegal war in Iraq. He is willing to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives as long as he and his own family are in no danger. (He even "supported" the Viet Nam war, but he got a bunch of deferments so that he would not have to fight for the war he believed in.) He is also a hypocrite because he is willing to actually attack other people's family members, like when he attacked Joe Wilson's wife by revealing her as a covert CIA agent which put her, her contacts, and our country in danger, but if someone mentions his own daughter, Cheney pretends he is under attack and claims the "attacker" is "out of line."

Joe Wilson continues to defend his wife from the White House (an incredibly powerful entity), but Cheney is not willing to stand up for his daughter against the bigotry of the callous and comparatively weak organization Focus on the Family.

I have claimed many times that Bush is the worst president ever, and now I am claiming that Cheney is easily the worst vice president ever.

Update:BarbinMD at DailyKos has more on Cheney's state of denial:

Dick Cheney On Iraq

Bush's Job Approval Rating

Bush gave his State of the Union speech last night, and I think that it is worth noting his job approval rating on the day of that speech. (I am going to skip criticizing the speech for now because he did not really say anything new that I have not criticized before.)

I have noticed a tendency by some in the media for only citing one poll at a time in the job approval ratings, but I like to take all the recent numbers and find the average because I feel that is the most accurate rating that you can get short of polling everyone in the country (which would be impractical).

So from PollingReport.com, here are the five most recent approval/disapproval ratings:

Source_____Approve/Disapprove
CNN_______34/63
CBS_______28/64
NBC/WSJ___35/60
ABC/WP____33/65
Newsweek___31/62

average___32.2/62.8

I have been paying close attention to Bush's job approval numbers since 2004, and I think that these averages represent the lowest approval average and the highest disapproval average I have seen. It is also worth noting that the CBS poll has produced a new low for a single poll's approval rating: 28%. This beats the previous low of 29% by The Harris Poll in May 2006. It is also worth noting that the job approval numbers have decreased since Bush announced his escalation plan for Iraq.

The 32.2% job approval average is interesting in that it shows that less than a third of Americans still support Bush's handling of his job as President. Bush is now in Nixon territory with these low job approval ratings. He is ripe for impeachment. I suspect that Bush will soon be paraphrasing Nixon by saying, "I am not a war criminal."

CEO's Urge Bush To Fight Global Warming

Cap-and-trade does not go far enough in my opinion, but regardless, this is a huge step in the fight against global warming. When the CEOs of major corporations start urging Bush to recognize and work to stop global warming, who is left to deny it?

CEOs plead for mandatory emissions caps

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief executives of 10 major corporations urged Congress on Monday to require limits on greenhouse gases this year, contending voluntary efforts to combat climate change are inadequate.

The call for immediate action came on the eve of President Bush's State of the Union address in which he is expected to reiterate that the industry on its own is making progress in curtailing the growth of heat-trapping emissions without the need of government intervention.

But the executives and leaders of four major environmental organizations said in a letter to Bush that mandatory emissions caps are needed to reduce the flow of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

[...]

Members of the group include chief executives of Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.

[...]

"It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions," said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

Rogers is right. We must act now, but, knowing Bush, he will once again fail to do the right thing. Once again, the world will have to suffer the consequences of the man who inherits all his successes and turns them all into failures.

Throughout his life, Bush has done nothing but turn lemonade into lemons, and despite this, his daddy's friends continue to give him lemonade. Whether it was the oil companies he bankrupted, our country he is bankrupting, or the worldwide goodwill we had following 9/11, Bush has squandared it all. From preventing 9/11, to the war in Iraq, to capturing Osama bin Laden, he has been wrong or failed at everything. Now these CEOs are giving him the lemonade to make the switch from denying global warming to fighting global warming, and he will once again force our country and our world to waste valuable time that we should be using to save our planet and ourselves. He may literally be the death of us as he has been the death of so many of our troops and of so many innocent Iraqis. Bush is truly the worst president ever.

In The News

Here it is:

House Democrats Beat 100-Hour Clock

[The Democrats] passed their six-bill, 100-hour agenda with 13 hours to spare.

The last of ``Six for '06'' bills that Democrats promised voters in the fall passed shortly after 6 p.m. Thursday, about 87 hours after the 110th Congress opened Jan. 4.

Yay!

President Bush has threatened to veto two of the bills - a measure to expand stem cell research and legislation that would force the government to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs under Medicare.

Boo!

Former Ohio congressman sentenced to 30 months

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Rep. Bob Ney was sentenced Friday to 30 months in federal prison for his role in a congressional bribery scandal.

Ney, the first congressman ensnared in the case, pleaded guilty to trading official favors for golf trips, tickets, meals and campaign donations from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Unfortunately, because the Republicans who controlled Congress at the time refused to kick him out earlier, Bob Ney barely acheived the minimum time in office to qualify for a congressional pension. Duke Cunningham will get a pension also:

Ney keeps his pension: But future convicted lawmakers will not

Under current law, pensions can be forfeited only if a lawmaker commits crimes such as treason or espionage.

The National Taxpayers Union, which tracks congressional pensions, said Ney, who faces about two years in prison, would be eligible for about $29,000 a year if he waits until 2016, when he turns 62. Cunningham could garner benefits of about $64,000 with his military service, a sum that includes $36,000 from his eight terms in Congress.

The NTU says there are roughly 20 former members convicted of serious crimes who qualify for pensions.

Meanwhile, regular Americans who have not been convicted of anything are fighting to keep their pensions or have already lost them because of corporate greed or mismanagement.

Senate OKs tougher ethics bill 96-2

The Senate voted 96-2 for a measure that would prohibit lobbyists from paying for gifts for lawmakers and their staffs, including travel. It also would require full disclosure on which lawmakers have requested funding earmarks for specific projects in lawmakers' home states or districts.

The Republicans tried to kill the bill by adding a line-item veto amendment. That move failed, and the popular bill passed overwhelmingly. Despite its enormous popularity in the public, two Republicans voted against it:

Coburn votes against Senate ethics bill

Coburn, one of the Senate's leading crusaders against so-called pork-barrel spending, joined another Republican, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, in opposing the measure, which passed 96-to-2.

Coburn says he voted against the measure because Senate leaders did not allow debate or a recorded vote on an amendment that Coburn said would prohibit senators from requesting or promoting legislative earmarks that would financially benefit themselves, their families, their staff members or their staff members' families.

Sen. Coburn of Oklahoma voted against the bill in protest, but protest vote or not, does he really want to be known as the one who voted against a higher standard of ethics. The amendment that he wanted passed, but he says it will not be in a final conference report. I do not understand what that means, but it still does not seem to me like a good reason to vote against the whole ethics reform bill. As for Hatch, I was unsuccessful in finding out why he voted no, but it does not really matter. He is so well-liked in Utah, the man could vote against puppies and still be re-elected.

Insurgents in Iraq Claim Convoy Attack

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An al-Qaida-linked coalition of Iraqi Sunni insurgents claimed responsibility Thursday for an attack in Baghdad on a convoy of a Western democracy institute that killed a 28-year-old Ohio woman and three security contractors.

The Washington-based National Democratic Institute identified its slain staffer as Andrea Parhamovich of Perry, Ohio. Contractors from Hungary, Croatia and Iraq also were killed in the ambush Wednesday. Two other people were wounded, one seriously.

Parhamovich, a graduate of Marietta College in southeast Ohio, had been working with NDI in Iraq since late 2006 as a communications specialist advising Iraqi political parties on how to reach out to voters and constituents. She was helping ``build the kind of national level political institutions that can help bridge the sectarian divide and improve Iraqi lives,'' NDI said.

This makes me so sick. Here is a brave woman who sacrificed everything to work for the good of Iraq. It is quite a stark contrast between this woman and Bush, who sacrificed nothing personally and brought only war and death to Iraq. Then these madmen, who probably became extremists because of Bush's illegitimate war, kill this heroic woman. It is just sickening.

Pentagon: It Is Easier To Convict People Without Rights

The Pentagon apparently does not follow the Golden Rule:

Dems to fight terror trial rules allowing hearsay

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon set rules Thursday for detainee trials that could allow terror suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay testimony and coerced statements, setting up a new clash between President Bush and Congress.
[...]
Democrats controlling Congress said they would hold hearings and revive legislation on the plan.
[...]
The new regulations lack some protections used in civilian and military courtrooms, such as against coerced or hearsay evidence.

You can bet if some foreign entity tried an American with hearsay evidence or coerced testimony, our government would be against it.

This is America. We are supposed to be for fair trials.

This is why I hate what the Bush administration is doing to our country; little by little, they are destroying the good things that America stands for. What good is their goal of protecting America if they end up destroying American honor, values, and ideals in the process?

Of course, the common argument is that these detainees are terrorists and therefore do not deserve rights. First of all, we have already released detainees because they were not terrorists. We probably tortured them and ruined their lives, but at least we still have our honor, right? Wrong. Second, as I have said before, we gave rights to Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials whether or not they deserved it. The point is not that certain people are not worthy of rights; the point is that innocent people are, and without those rights, how do you protect the innocent?

Additionally, this is America, and our honor, our values, and our ideals depend on our adherence to the law and these rights. Anything less than that is simply un-American.

In The News

There is a lot going on today:

U.S. could cut troops if it better armed Iraqi forces: al-Maliki

The U.S. could "drastically" cut its presence in Iraq within three to six months if it were to provide sufficient weapons to the Mideast country's security forces, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

"If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down," al-Maliki said in an interview published Thursday in the British newspaper The Times.

"That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them," said al-Maliki, who has been heading the Shia-dominated coalition government since April.

The Americans have been wary of providing weapons for fear that they will end up in the hands of insurgents.

Apparently, even al-Maliki has an exit strategy that Bush is ignoring.

Bush Chides Iraq Over Recent Executions

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday the unruly execution of Saddam Hussein ``looked like it was kind of a revenge killing,'' making it harder to persuade a skeptical U.S. public that Iraq's government will keep promises central to Bush's plan for a troop increase.

In his toughest assessment yet, Bush criticized the circumstances of Saddam's hanging last month, as well as Monday's execution of two top aides, including Saddam's half brother.

``I was disappointed and felt like they fumbled the - particularly the Saddam Hussein execution,'' the president said in an interview with PBS' Jim Lehrer.

I guess all those right-wingers who said those who criticized the handling of these executions were disloyal to our country can now count their icon Bush as another disloyal American.

Off the Mark

"Obama's First Blunder," the headline said.

It turned out instead to be Dick Morris's first blunder of the 2008 campaign.

The political strategist turned Fox News commentator had a column in The Hill yesterday, accusing Barack Obama of an "inexplicable pro-nepotism vote."

The Illinois Democrat's offense? "He joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls," Morris wrote. And: "The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process" voting in this fashion.

"Why did he vote against it?" Morris added on "Hannity & Colmes." "Because Jesse Jackson's son has his wife on his House payroll, and he didn't want to get him mad at him."

A pretty good issue, if true. But Obama voted for the amendment in question. Morris was flat-out wrong.

This is not really news. Dick Morris is always wrong, but the story is still amusing.

Pentagon official apologizes for remarks about terror suspect lawyers

WASHINGTON – A senior Pentagon official publicly apologized Wednesday for criticizing lawyers who represent terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for suggesting their firms be boycotted.
Charles “Cully” Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said his criticism of the lawyers on a local radio program last week did not reflect his “core beliefs.”

“My comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo,” Stimson said in a letter to the editor published in The Washington Post.
Stimson drew outrage from the legal community – and a disavowal from the Defense Department – after he said he found it shocking that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba. He suggested some were being untruthful about doing the work free of charge and said companies might want to consider taking their business to other firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

He originally was vaguely accusing defense lawyers of Guantanamo Bay detainees of being terrorist sympathizers. He forgot how our justice system works. He forgot about ideals like "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to have a fair trial. Apologies like this are rare, so I appreciate that he made it.

Evangelicals, Scientists Join on Warming

Saying they share a moral purpose, a group of evangelicals and scientists said Wednesday they will work together to convince the nation's leaders that global warming is real.

We are getting closer to the point where Bush and the oil companies are the only ones who still believe that Global Warming is not real and not our fault. Already, they are probably the only ones who think we should still be in Iraq.

Officer facing court-martial denounces war

The nation's first Army officer to refuse deployment to Iraq urged the public in a statement Wednesday to "stop the war so that the death and sacrifices of American soldiers will not be in vain" after a major legal setback in his court-martial proceedings.

First Lt. Ehren Watada, who is based at Ft. Lewis near Seattle, faces six years in prison for failing to deploy to Iraq last year with his Stryker brigade and for criticizing President Bush and the war in statements to the media and at a peace convention.

The 28-year-old Honolulu native has argued that the war is illegal because Bush did not obtain proper authorization for it, and that Army rules and the Nuremberg principles adopted after World War II required Watada to disobey orders to participate.

On Tuesday, however, Lt. Col. John M. Head, the military judge in the case, rejected Watada's request to debate the legality of the war at his court-martial next month. Although Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, had sought to open the question so the soldier could explain why he defied his deployment orders, Head ruled that the war's legality was a political question irrelevant to the charges at hand.

Head also rejected motions to dismiss charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer" related to Watada's criticism of Bush and the war.

Seitz had argued that the 1st Amendment protected Watada's remarks. But Head disagreed in his written decision, saying that courts have ruled that soldiers do not enjoy the same degree of free-speech protections as civilians.

Watada is standing up for what is right in the face of immense adversity, and he may be punished for doing the right thing. I wish there was more I could do to support him. I hope and pray for him and his cause.

Bush Caves On Illegal Spying

Over a year ago, when the stories first came out about Bush's illegal wiretapping program, I was convinced that Bush and his administration needed to be impeached and prosecuted for their crimes.

White House Shifts Course on Spy Program

WASHINGTON (AP) - A year after disclosure of a domestic spying program that President Bush maintained was within his authority to operate, the administration shifted its position and said it would seek the approval of an independent panel of federal judges.

The program allowed the National Security Agency - without a court-issued warrant -to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and other countries when a link to terrorism was suspected. Bush secretly authorized the program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told senators in a letter Wednesday that ``any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.''

So now, Bush has caved in on the illegal spying. Maybe.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that the spying program will now be done legally through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is what they were supposed to do all along, but they did not. Therefore, they broke the law.

Although the secret court was established precisely to review requests for domestic surveillance warrants, the White House insisted that such oversight was not required by law and, in fact, would slow efforts to stop terrorists. Bush maintained the warrantless program's existence was ``fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.''

Last August, a federal judge in Detroit declared the spying program unconstitutional, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.

That appeal, which was scheduled to be heard on Jan. 31, will now likely be rendered moot, said one Justice Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not yet officially decided whether to drop its case.

At the time, they said they did not have to obey FISA. What happened to all their arguments about that?

Now that they have lost two judicial trials on this issue and there are going to be investigations into this matter because the Democrats control Congress, the Bush administration say that they will obey FISA. Whether or not the court dicisions and/or the threat of investigations is their motivation to all of a sudden stop their law-breaking has yet to be determined. So why are they doing this?

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government over the program, called the Justice Department's announcement ``a quintessential flip-flop.''

``The NSA was operating illegally and this eleventh-hour ploy is clearly an effort to avoid judicial and congressional scrutiny,'' said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. ``Despite this adroit back flip, the constitutional problems with the president's actions remain unaddressed.''

Have they had a change of heart? Are they asking for forgiveness because they realized they were breaking the law? Or did they know they were breaking the law all along? Are they just pretending to obey the law because they found some loophole? Are they just lying? What reason do we have to trust them?

Regardless of the answers, I feel this is like a thief saying he has stoped thieving and does not expect to be punished or to have to pay for his past crimes because he said he would not commit anymore crimes.

As if all this was not infuritating enough, Gonzales also said this recently:

Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on anti-terror policy

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who "apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences."

Gonzales wants us to just forget all that "checks and balances" stuff, the basis of our Constitution and government. Remember that this guy is the head of the Justice Department; he is the one who is supposed to be defending the law and the Constitution. Instead, during his time in office, he has done nothing but argue that the law and Constitution are garbage and that the President's power overrides everything else.


Gonzales needs to be fired immediately. He is more of a threat to our system of government than any enemy we have known in our history.

And then there is this:

Gonzales Discusses Attorney Vacancies

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats want to take away Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' power to replace U.S. attorneys who fall out of favor and return that authority to federal district judges.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Mark Pryor of Arkansas complained Tuesday that the White House is using an obscure provision in the newly reauthorized USA Patriot Act to reward Republican political allies with jobs as federal prosecutors.

"The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements," Feinstein said.

"It appears that the administration has chosen to use this provision, which was intended to help protect our nation, to circumvent the transparent constitutional Senate confirmation process to reward political allies," Pryor said in the joint Democratic statement.

Not true, Gonzales told The Associated Press.

"We are fully committed to ensuring that with respect to every position we have a Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed U.S. attorney," Gonzales told editors and reporters during an interview Tuesday.

"We in no way politicize these decisions," he added.

U.S. District Court judges, Gonzales said, tend to appoint friends and others not properly qualified to be prosecutors.

Better that judges do the hiring than the White House, say Democrats, who have introduced legislation to return the appointment process to the courts.

[...]

At issue is whether the administration is using an obscure provision in the terrorism-fighting USA Patriot Act to oust federal prosecutors and replace them for the duration of the Bush administration with White House allies.

The intent of the law was to ensure continuity of law enforcement when federal prosecutors are lost in terrorist attacks or other crises. Under it, the attorney general would be permitted to appoint replacements, indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.

In the year since the reauthorization took effect, 11 federal prosecutors have resigned or announced their resignations -- some at the urging of the Bush administration, Gonzales said. He described a range of reasons for ousting sitting U.S. attorneys, from their job performance to their standing in their communities, and noted that federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot really make detailed arguments about all of these issues, but Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer and does make really detailed arguments about the Bush administration's moves. He has a lot to say about Bush's flip-flop on FISA:

FISA and the President -- together again

Nothing to celebrate

Update: I am not the only one who is skeptical about Bush's new attitude towards FISA. Here are two posts from DailyKos on the topic:

Warrantless Wiretapping Still?

Taking Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due

Also, on the topic of firing Gonzales, another DailyKos post talks about impeaching him and mentions another one of his attacks on the Constitution. This time he insidiously contorts logic to claim that not every citizen is assured the right of habeas corpus despite what the Constitution says:

Impeach Gonzales

Wrong About Iraq? You're Hired!

CrooksandLiars, Kos, David Sirota, and probably more people have mentioned this already, and I felt it was worth mentioning too.

This article details how certain pundits and columnists who were wrong about the war in Iraq are doing very well in their professional lives while those who were right about the war in Iraq are not doing so well professionally. It is really funny in a depressing sort of way. I suggest reading it if you can:

The Iraq Gamble
At the pundits' table, the losing bet still takes the pot
By Jebediah Reed

Wow

This guy could write a book on how to offend people:

Slavery Remarks Spark Outrage

(AP) A Virginia state legislator is sparking outrage over remarks made arguing against a proposed apology by the state to the descendants of slaves.

Republican delegate Frank D. Hargrove, in comments published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville, Va., said slavery ended nearly 140 years ago with the Civil War and added: "I personally think that our black citizens should get over it."

The newspaper also quoted the 79-year-old lawmaker as saying: "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"

Responding to his critics Tuesday, Hargrove, who is 79, told a delegate whose Jewish ancestors immigrated from Nazi-occupied Poland that the delegate's skin is "a little too thin."

Black House of Delegates members swiftly denounced the comments Hargrove made on the holiday commemorating the life and mission of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"When somebody tells me I should just get over slavery, I can only express my emotion by projecting that I am appalled, absolutely appalled," said Delegate Dwight C. Jones, head of the Legislative Black Caucus.

Delegate David L. Englin, a Democrat, seated next to Hargrove, spoke passionately about his grandparents leaving Poland "where they were driven from their homes by people who believed that as Jews, we killed Christ."

This guy is arguing against apologizing for slavery! Is this seriously something a politician wants to be known for being against?

Slavery is probably the most horrendous and embarrassing part of our country's history, and that is saying a lot considering what we did to the Native Americans throughtout our history and to Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Apologizing is the least Virginia or any state could do, and it is probably the easiest to do. How can anyone have a problem with that?

Perhaps Hargrove feels that since he did not personally enslave anyone he does not want to apologize for slavery, but no one is suggesting that he apologize for it. They are suggesting that Virginia, an entity which did enslave people in its past, issue an apology for slavery, not Hargrove, not the people of Virginia, but Virginia itself.

As for his really bad analogy about making Jews "apologize for killing Christ," that it is just wrong on so many levels that I am not sure where to begin. It really is so offensive, ridiculous, and wrong that it does not deserve a response, but the fact that there are people out there that still believe in such a myth signifies that we still have a problem that needs to be addressed.

I am not going to be able to address that huge problem in a single post, but let me try to do a quick debunk: A relatively small group of evil and/or ignorant people killed Christ, and they were a mix of ethnicities and creeds. Saying the Jews should "apologize for killing Christ" is the unfair practice of guilt by association, and it would be like saying that, while Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, everyone with the last name "Nichols" should apologize for it.

The idea is absurd, and, again, I should not have to point all this out, but everytime someone brings it up we should immediately smack it back down.

AP: Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale

After all the trouble we are going through to show Iran that we are still in charge and all the threats the Bush administration is making towards Iran, I read this:

AP: Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.

In one case, federal investigators said, contraband purchased in Defense Department surplus auctions was delivered to Iran, a country President Bush has branded part of an ``axis of evil.''

In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say those parts did make it to Iran.

Well, we also sold WMDs to Iraq, which Saddam Hussein used against his own people.

Then Bush lied about Hussein having more WMDs, so we invaded Iraq.

So when Hussein was our ally we sold him WMDs. And when he used WMDs, he was still our ally. But when he did not have WMDs and he was not using WMDs, he was our enemy. So Bush lied about him having WMDs so that we would agree to attack him because he was our enemy.

Man, this foreign policy thing is confusing.

So now Iran is our enemy and and we are selling them our military gear. And what was that whole Iran-Contra thing about?

Seriously, we need to get our act together.

War On Terror Not In Iraq and Escalation In Afghanistan

While Congress is debating whether or not to allow Bush to go forward with escalating his very bad idea into an even worse idea (as explained by this "This Modern World" cartoon), and while Bush is going ahead with his surge escalation regardless of what Congress does, Pakistan is busy fighting the War on Terror on their border and the Taliban and al-Qaeda is going forward with a surge escalation of their own in Afghanistan.

Bush is so busy fighting against people who did not attack us on 9/11 that it has been left up to Pakistan to fight the people who did (al-Qaeda):

Pakistanis Hit Possible al-Qaida Target

(AP) Pakistani helicopter gunships attacked a suspected al-Qaida hide-out in forest near the Afghan border Tuesday, killing up to 10 people and sparking anger among tribesmen who said the dead were woodcutters, not terrorists.

The raid in South Waziristan came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Afghanistan and as pressure grew on Pakistan to crack down on militants launching attacks across the frontier.

In the same article, they mention the increase of insurgent attacks in Afghanistan (something that Bush is not even paying lip service to):

Tuesday's raid ended a relative lull in violence on the Pakistan side of the border since the government signed a September peace deal with pro-Taliban militants in nearby North Waziristan. But critics say the deal has consolidated Taliban influence and given freer rein for militants to venture into Afghanistan where violence has escalated sharply.

In a sign that Pakistan was getting tougher again, Musharraf told top generals Tuesday it would continue efforts to control extremism and terrorism through political means, but would not tolerate any illegal border-crossing. "Any hide-out or sanctuary being used by terrorists or miscreants shall be knocked out wherever it is found," a military statement quoted Musharraf as saying.

As Gates visited Kabul and held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, American military officials said Taliban fighters were exploiting the North Waziristan deal to dramatically increase attacks on U.S. and allied forces in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan.

A U.S. military intelligence officer said since the deal took effect Sept. 5, the number of attacks in the border area of Afghanistan had grown by 300 percent _ although one condition of the deal is for militants to refrain from such attacks. Pakistan was also accused of turning a blind eye to infiltration by Taliban fighters at a border control point.

The number of attacks in Afghanistan (where al-Qaeda actually is) are up, yet Bush is still obsessed with Iraq despite being wrong about everything on Iraq. Even Bush's own Secretary of Defense sees this as a problem:

Gates to consider more troops for Afghanistan

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider more troops for Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say the Taliban insurgency, controlled from Pakistan, is expected to intensify.

Gates, in Afghanistan to ensure commanders have the resources to counter an expected Taliban offensive in the spring, said it was very important the United States and its allies did not let the success achieved there slip away.
Violence in Afghanistan increased last year to its bloodiest since U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. military commanders said attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan had surged, several-fold in some areas.

Gates said he had discussed the situation with the commander of Afghanistan's NATO force, General David Richards, and others.

Asked if the commanders had made a case for more troops, Gates said: "Yes."

The United Kingdom's Prime Minister agrees:

Blair signals UK will send more troops to Afghanistan

The prospect of more British troops being sent to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan was signalled by Tony Blair yesterday.

The move followed an exclusive report in The Herald in which it was revealed that during a private meeting in No 10 on Sunday, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, asked the Prime Minister for additional British forces to keep up the military momentum against the insurgents.

[...]

He added at his monthly press conference: "It is very important that the Taliban are defeated. One of the reasons why these fights have been going on in past two days is precisely to degrade Taliban capability and are forces are doing a very good job."

However because of Bush's obsession with Iraq and neglect of Afghanistan, this would be a strain on the UK if the US does not start to take Afghanistan seriously:

Military sources have suggested that the US request could result in as many as 1000 extra British troops being sent to Afghanistan. If it happens, then it will put further pressure on a stretched - some say overstretched - army, which is already struggling to cope with a rolling deployment of 5800 soldiers to Afghanistan and 7100 to Iraq every six months.

The Americans have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and are about to take command of all Nato forces, including the British, next month. The Pentagon is keen to reduce its commitment there to create reserves for Iraq.

Potential presidential candidate Sen. Clinton agrees with Gates and Blair about Afghanistan:

Clinton wants to cap troops in Iraq, increase troops in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON - The United States should cap the number of troops in Iraq, while increasing American forces in Afghanistan, Sen. Hillary Rodham said Wednesday.

[...]

On Afghanistan, Clinton called the conflict there "one of the great missed opportunities," urging an increase in U.S. troops before a likely "spring offensive" by the Taliban.

And what is this "spring offensive" in Afghanistan we have heard so little about because of Bush's escalation in Iraq?:

Canadians confident despite U.S. warning of spring Taliban offensive

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - There are growing warnings among U.S. military ranks that Kandahar, the "holy grail" for Taliban militants, will once again be the central objective of an anticipated spring offensive.

The high sign is coming not only from American commanders on the ground, but senior officials with newly appointed U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gate, who is expected to travel to Afghanistan in the coming days.

The senior Canadian commander in Afghanistan said he doesn't believe the province of Kandahar, nor the city itself, would bear the brunt of a spring offensive if one materializes, adding he has confidence his U.S. allies will not yield any ground.

So while Bush is pushing for an escalation in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the terrorist organisation behind the 9/11 attacks) are pushing an escalation of their own in Afghanistan. Even if this "spring offensive" does not happen, there has been an gradual escalation of insurgent attacks for the past few years.

Bush is fighting the War on Terror in the wrong country, and other countries are having to make up the difference.

It is not that I am surprised that the self-proclaimed "Decider" is, once again, making bad decisions, but I am still horribly disappointed.

34,000 Iraqi Deaths in 2006

How many more have to die, Mr. Bush?

IRAQ WRAPUP 6-Baghdad bombs kill 100, UN says 34,000 died in '06

BAGHDAD, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Bombers killed 65 people, many of them young women students, at a Baghdad university on Tuesday on one of the city's bloodiest days in weeks.

In all, at least 100 were killed in bombings and a shooting in the capital on a day when the United Nations said more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died in violence last year.

Stop Extinction

Let's make "extinction" go the way of the Dodo.

Scientists aim to save lesser-known mammals at risk of extinction

Some of the planet's rarest and most unusual animals will be the focus of an ambitious conservation project launched today by British scientists. The plan will focus on animals traditionally overlooked by conservationists, and will allow the public to track and donate to individual projects via a new website.

Led by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the Edge project has identified 100 species of mammals that have the fewest relatives left alive in the wild, making them the world's most genetically-unique mammals. The 10 most endangered, including the Yanghtze river dolphin and bumblebee bat, will be the focus of the first year's work. Jonathan Baillie of ZSL said the aim was to prevent hundreds of unique species from sliding unnoticed towards extinction...

The public can track the progress of the conservation effort and contribute through the project's website. "It's appealing to the general public through the website and identifying what needs to be done to empower people," said Dr Baillie. "It's one thing to tell people that species are threatened but it's another to provide solutions and allow them to get involved in the solution."

We Need Fair Trade, Not NAFTA: NAFTA Caused This Death

On many issues, I believe that conservatives like to fight the symptom and not the cause. This is the case with health care, welfare, drugs, terrorism, abortion, and illegal immigration. I, and many progressives, prefer to look at the cause in looking for ways to fix a problem.

For example, let us think about illegal immigration. Our foreign trade policies, like NAFTA, cause excessive poverty places like Mexico (which is the opposite effect of what many proponents of NAFTA said it would do). This, in turn, causes many poor people in other countries to seek a better life by immigrating illegally to the USA. That, in turn, causes problems in our own country. Those problems divide us politically, which then hinders our progress on other more important issues.

This is where conservatives like to fight the problem by fighting the symptom. Some people (some conservatives) go to ridiculous and racist lengths to fight illegal immigration, blame all their other problems on illegal immigration, and call anything less than total expulsion of all illegal immigrants "amnesty". Other people (some conservatives, most moderates, and some liberals) say we should have a "guest worker" program. This is similar to failed programs already in use in countries like France. With all the riots that France suffered in recent years by their "guest workers," you would think we would shun this idea, but alas, the Bush Administration thinks it is a good idea. (As if they have ever had a good idea.)

Just like when you have a cold, you can fight the symptoms, but until your body kills the virus, you still have a cold.

This is why I suggest we fight the source of the symptoms: our bad trade policies. We should seek out fair trade policies, not free trade policies.

Fair trade policies work to improve health, work, and quality of life conditions in foreign countries. They work to prevent sweat shops, child labor, and other labor practices that amount to slavery. By improving the conditions, in other countries, you cut off the chain of events that lead to our problems with illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration, greedy corporations, many conservatives, and liars like Tom Friedman are against fair trade. They say it would hurt "our" economy when what they mean is it would hurt "their" economy. In reality, it may affect their bottom line, but they would still make a profit, and their CEOs are paid WAY too much for me to care. If they cut their CEOs pay, they could easily make up the difference. They prefer to exploit these countries for their own greed, and do not care at all how their policies negatively affect us down the line with the problems caused by illegal immigration.

If we worked toward fair trade, not free trade we could avoid so many problems while at the same time doing some good by improving the lives of so many around the world.

And we could also avoid problems like this:

Mother of slain Mexican immigrant seeks 'death penalty'

MEXICO CITY - The mother of a Mexican immigrant shot to death last week by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent in Arizona asked for justice on Monday and said she would like to see the agent receive the death penalty...

Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, 22, a native of the central state of Puebla, was shot and killed during a confrontation with the unidentified agent north of the U.S.-Mexico border between Bisbee and Douglas on Friday after the agent responded to a call about a group of seven people crossing the desert.
The agent took six of the seven people into custody without incident but then started fighting with Dominguez Rivera. The agent, who thought his life was in danger, shot and killed the man, the Border Patrol said previously.

You may put the plame on the immigrant or the agent depending on your point of view, but personally, I blame NAFTA.

What Is Most Important

What is most important to the Bush Administration?

Saving face or doing what is right?

The answer is obvious to me. The right thing to do would be to admit it was a mistake to invade Iraq and get out, but Bush would rather send more troops to risk their lives (not his own) in a failed, illegal, and unnecessary war simply to save face. The act is deplorable, but it seems that it will happen regardless.

And to what lengths will Bush's face-saving strategy go? Maybe start another war, this time with Iran, just to show them who's boss.

What does our Secretary of Defense say about that?

Gates Says Iran Sees U.S. As Bogged Down

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that new U.S. military moves in the Persian Gulf were prompted in part by signals from Iran that it sees the United States as vulnerable in Iraq.

"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," Gates told reporters at NATO headquarters before flying to Kabul to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and to visit U.S. soldiers and commanders.

It was Gates' first trip to Afghanistan since he took over for Donald H. Rumsfeld last month; he had said several times recently that he is worried that U.S. gains in stabilizing Afghanistan could be in jeopardy as the radical Taliban movement makes a comeback in some parts of the country, particularly the south.

In Brussels, Gates indicated that Iran's perception of U.S. vulnerability was part of the reason the Pentagon decided last week to send a second aircraft carrier battle group and a Patriot anti-missile battalion to the Gulf area. Patriots defend against shorter-range missiles of the type that Iran could use to target U.S. forces in the area. The Pentagon has not said exactly where the Patriots will be based.

The second aircraft carrier gives the U.S. more flexibility and serves as a reminder of U.S. firepower.

Why all this fuss over Iran? Is the 20,000+ troop increase to impress Iran too?

Bush is, yet again, losing focus. He focused on Iraq when he should have been focussing on bin Laden and Afghanistan. Now, he is focussing on Iran when he should be focusing on Iraq.

Bush is risking the lives of more troops and wasting more taxpayer dollars to save face. Instead, I think we should focus on what is important: doing what is right. Cutting off funding for the troop increase would be a good start. Impeachment would be a better start.

More And More Like Big Brother

I am already past the point of outrage over how much the Bush Administration is moving our country towards something out of Orwell's 1984. First the illegal wiretapping, then the phone records and internet searches, and now bank and credit records.

They are all examples of breaking the law, violating the Constitution, and infringing on our right to privacy. Hence they are illegal, and the Bush Administration should be prosecuted for these crimes.

Cheney defends bank, credit records searches by Pentagon, CIA

WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his panel will be the judge of that...

In a statement Sunday, Reyes promised that his panel would take a careful look at those claims.

“Any expansion by the department into intelligence collection, particularly on U.S. soil, is something our committee will thoroughly review,” Reyes said.

“We want our intelligence professionals to have strong tools that will enable them to interrupt the planning process of our enemies and to stop attacks against our country,” he said. “But in doing so, we also want those tools to comply fully with the law and the Constitution.”

The Pentagon and the CIA, to a lesser extent, have used this little-known power, officials said. The FBI, the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of such letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The letters have generated criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who claim they invade the privacy of Americans' lives, even though banks and other financial institutions typically turn over the financial records voluntarily.

Media Matters for America's Open Letter to ABC/Disney

I agree with Media Matters for America and David Brock.

Media Matters implores ABC not to air violent hate speech and racist fearmongering

[...]Media Matters for America has posted several examples of KSFO hosts' extreme rhetoric, and recently included Morgan in a petition against "hate merchants" on the airwaves that has garnered more than 33,000 signatures to date.

We are also gravely concerned that ABC/Disney has engaged in what appears to be corporate intimidation in an effort to silence the voices of those Americans who would dare to criticize this type of dangerous and un-American rhetoric.

As you know, ABC/Disney recently sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Spocko, the Bay Area blogger who posted clips of KSFO hate speech on his weblog for the purposes of critcism and contacted station advertisers to make them aware of the views being publicly advocated with their dollars by Morgan, Sussman, and others. The cease-and-desist letter ultimately led Spocko's Internet service provider to shut down his blog, as Media Matters documented.

It is hard to believe that the same company that brought us Mickey Mouse and The Little Mermaid could be involved in any way with individuals who publicly advocate hate, racism, and violence.

For ABC/Disney and its sponsor companies to continue to fund, promote, and broadcast this program and others like it suggests a serious lack of judgment on the part of one of this nation's trusted media companies, as well as a lack of commitment to use of the airwaves as a public trust, and we implore you to reconsider airing such deplorable content immediately.

Why, Connecticut? Why?!

Why did you re-elect Lieberman, Connecticut? The man conned you. The new Congress has barely begun, and he has already flip-flopped on some very important issues since his campaign as Kos points out:

Lieberman refuses to hold Bush accountable for Katrina

...he promised them troop withdrawals before the end of this year and aggressive oversight over the mess in Katrina.

And now, he has broken both promises.

I do not have a problem with someone standing up for what they believe in, which is what Lieberman claims to be doing, but I do not see it that way.

He did not stand up for what he believed in. He said he would do one thing and then did the opposite. That is not "taking a stand". That is hiding behind lies, winning an election by deception, and weaseling out of his promises.

Joe Lieberman is the reason that people do not trust politicians. He is the worst kind of politician. He is a con artist.

Connecticut, it would be one thing if you were just bringing yourself down by re-electing him, but instead, you have brought this whole country down. You have stuck us with this disgrace for another six years.

Which is probably how long it will take for me to forgive Connecticut. Unless that state elects him again, at which point my head will probably explode. But at least then, I won't have to hear Lieberman say stupid statements like this:

Lieberman on Surge: What’s “The Worst that Could Happen”?

Even those opposed to the surge, he said, “ought to at least let us try it.”

“The worst that could happen,” he continued, is that this policy could become another partisan flashpoint in Washington.

Ahem. I believe, senator, that the “worst that could happen” is that a significant number of the 20,000-30,000 troops we send to police the hornets’ nest of Baghdad could come home in body bags.

How insensitive and ignorant can you get? There is just no reason, NO reason, why this man deserves to be a US Senator.