Blue Texan!

Hi Biodun & Blue Texan

Oh goody, grilled rocky mountain oysters.

Hi, Blue Texan! Biodun, you dog! *g*

Could Sen. Clinton and Obama maybe take a time out from attacking each other and start focusing on the real war?

I hope the damage is not done already–for general, I mean. If Hillary gets the nomination, the African-American vote might not be a guarantee for the Dems…

Yep. We’re just getting started here. *g*

Hi Richmond.

But those dead and injured don’t matter in Bushworld, where up is down, black is white, and the truth is for those who can’t afford the best legal representation.

I can’t even imagine how I’d feel right now to be a family member or friend of one of those 4,000 (or one of the 20,000 injured whose life will NEVER be the same.)

Where do we go to get our country back?
-S

Someone’s on C-SPAN3 talking about this right now, LIVE.

It is a little hard for Hillary Clinton to talk about this since she participated in the deception.

there have been comments to that effect from members of the AA community who are in SC, on Dkos Kid Oakland diary to which I linked a few days ago. I share your concern on the evidence of those comments.Kid oakland has a new obama on the rec list you can probably find it through that if you are interested.
I am staying neutral for the sake of peace. what goes into the bluestate ballot box stays there.

And, the WSJ has this - troubling indeed
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....mmentaries

Ann in AZ:

My 6 was meant as a response to you. The java buttons on top of comment box ain’t working for me again today…

I find it somewhat ironic to see the most ardent of this Administration’s supporters carping on the subject of truthfulness…

This whole episode in our history has been, and still is, so horrendous to witness and contemplate, I simply cannot listen to boosh/chainee statements without feeling physically ill.

What they are doing is absolutely evil.

They MUST be impeached.

They should be in jail, not sullying the halls of our government.

This may all seem redundant, but we want it officially documented, to a fare-thee-well, just how much and how badly Bush lied, because his unindicted co-conspirators in the media will never willingly ‘fess up to their own role in promoting his bullshit as if it was caviar.

This is being done for history’s sake, as well as for our sakes. Things are blowing up all to hell on several fronts, and unless we have this information at our fingertips, the GOP/Media Complex will succeed in blaming it all not on Bush and the GOP, but on us.

I find it somewhat ironic to see the most ardent of this Administration’s supporters carping on the subject of truthfulness…

yes, somewhat.

.
Hi BT!

I’m not an Obama supporter, but I find ganging up on him, especially by Southerners, some troubling…

My 17: I meant …somewhat troubling…

Just left this on a previous thread, but seems more relevant here:

It was on my Yahoo frontpage (AP) this morning which seemed odd. These “non-profits” have been releasing all kinds of important things over the years. Why does the BigMedia all of a sudden care what they say?

I wonder if it has to do with what I was saying earlier about how the Repubes will be running against the “Bush Administration” this year. They’ll be saying that the Shrubinistas were a rogue cabal within the Repube Party, and how they’ll come riding in on their fiscally responsible horse to return to the Repube traditions, which are completely phony as we know here.

Again, the Repubes, the Dem enablers, and BigMedia will ignore their own significant role in all this madness, and try like hell to push all the old storylines of “tax-and-spend Liberals” and “responsible” convservatives. I hope I’m wrong.

From the NY Observer:

Battle is the byword these days among New York’s chattering Democrats. On one side, there’s the Hillary supporter who feels that she is the most pragmatic choice for the job; on the other, there’s an Obama believer whose misty-eyed faith in the senator is exceeded only by his (or her) penchant for criticizing Mrs. Clinton. “I have been involved in literally almost every presidential primary in New York State since 1968,” when Robert F. Kennedy faced off against Eugene McCarthy, said Ethan Geto, a veteran political operative and gay rights activist who ran Howard Dean’s New York campaign for president in 2004 and is currently supporting Mrs. Clinton. “And since 1968, I have not seen this kind of emotional intensity.”

After Bush, Colin Powell lied the most. He is the most reprehensible of all of these criminals. He promised that the military wouldn’t be
abused as they were in Vietnam. Bush is a psychopath, Powell isn’t. He deserves to be the first on trial for war crimes.

“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

I’m shocked! Shocked, I say, that a country could lie to its citizens to get them revved up for war! NOT! It’s what countries do. That’s why they call it propaganda. What makes this so appalling is that it happened in a democracy where the government derives its power from the informed consent of the governed. At least, that’s how I was taught it is supposed to work. The real appalling part is the apathetic attitude of the citizenry, as BT points out.

And as Biodun points out (#5):

I hope the damage is not done already–for general, I mean. If Hillary gets the nomination, the African-American vote might not be a guarantee for the Dems…

Hillary’s campaign tactics may be the death of her chances this fall. Most everyone knows that she is the one person that can unify the Rethugs, and it appears she and Bill are shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the Black vote. If I were a black voter, I would probably feel like the Clintons were traitors to our cause. This fall, a Democratic victory is hardly a cinch. We have the wind at our backs, so to speak, by you can’t say we haven’t done everything in our power to lose the WH so far.

It’s all kabuki out there. Layers and layers and layers of lies and spins and myths.

People don’t understand what is going down. They live in their own pleasure doms or survival hells.

something I posted downstairs is on point here and I want to restate;

there are a few things missing from this report

I think it’s language is not quite strong enough

I think it NEEDS to say “deliberately lied for the purpose of lead us to war and undermined our efforts against terrorism”

I would also like it to add but understand why this is not in there too

“by proceeding with their predetermined agenda to bring war regardless of the facts, they facilitated, strengthened and gave comfort to the enemy”

the only purpose of this war was to redistribute middle class wealth to the pockets of the depraved maniacs who bank on death

the premium is astounding in it’s inefficiency, they didn’t care that the rate of return is exponetially negative

to launder middle class assets and put them in their pockets they turned trillions of dollars in assets to billions of dollars in personal profit

at the cost of our national security, our infrastructure, the worlds economic security, the worlds military security, the integrity of the united states

and with the cost of our children’s lives, the family they leave behind, the family they will never have

NANCY PELOSI, YOU HAVE AN OATH TO HONOR AND A DUTY TO FULFILL

YOUR COUNTRY IS IN NEED OF YOUR SERVICE, A SERVICE YOU HAVE PROMISED TO PROVIDE

taken from downstairs;

the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won’t be coming home anytime soon

OK, pelosi is TRYING to claim that if there were evidence of impeachable offenses she WOULD impeach

WE MUST CALL HER OUT

we must begin calling her “Nancy bush”, “the bush enabler”

“partner in high crimes to the bush administration”

WE MUST FORCE HER HAND

because she has reneged her oath of office, she is an enabler to high crimes, she is in therefore a party and in league with these crimes and she too must be brought and stand before the bar of justice

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

So what? The man could eat live babies on TeeVee and no one would even bat an eye. As much as Republicans disgust me, the postponement of the contempt vote in the House today has switched me from Democrat to Republican. I figure if you’re going to back a criminal enterprise, it may as well be the one that is stealing the most. GODDAMN DEMOCRATS.

Thanks, Biodun, but I already assumed as much. Congrats, by the way. When I got here there was only one comment. I immediately started laughing and said to myself, “Gee, I wonder who that could be?!!” When I got to “below the fold” area, I saw I was right. No doubt you’re good!

I’m not an Obama supporter, but I find ganging up on him, especially by Southerners, some troubling…

No surprise but in the South there will be less of the Bradley effect; they are proud of their racism. The good news is that these people are, for the most part, in the Thug party and wouldn’t vote for a Dem of any color. Best thing that LBJ did was run this scum out of the Dem party.

And the feud gets domestic, into marriages and bedrooms:

It’s when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama clamber into bed between couples that things get really ugly. One minute you’ll be lying next to each other, innocently discussing preschools or gym memberships and the next—stony silence! The disagreements might be substantive, delving into the minutia of Mr. Obama’s Social Security rhetoric, or the implications of Mrs. Clinton’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a “terrorist organization.” But then there are the endless rounds regarding “experience” and “charisma” and “tears” that make couples who only months earlier vowed to love each other “for better or worse, richer or poorer” suddenly start to wonder whether they shouldn’t have added a clause about “for Hillary or Obama, New Hampshire or Iowa.”

“Watching the results come in of the New Hampshire primary, I was despondent, and my wife was overjoyed,” recalled a 30-something, pro-Obama journalist named Andrew, who lives near Gramercy Park with his Hillary-lovin’ bride, and asked that his full name not be used because he sometimes covers politics. “It was one of those moments where we looked at each other, and it felt as though maybe we didn’t know each other quite as well as we thought.”

(Same link as my 20.)

Thank you eCAHN’

Chuck Lewis, Founder of Center for Public Integrity

Report on Bush Administration Pre-Iraq War Statements

It’s a presser, I guess. A must-hear/see.

Very interesting. I assume it can be viewed later also, & will be in their list of recent programs. Powerful stuff. Also swatting media for lack of info. to public.

Update: VPCheney at 11:+ on surveillance, on C-3.

I’m not an Obama supporter, but I find ganging up on him, especially by Southerners, some troubling…

I think he might become “O’boma” for st patty’s day

poll;

does he become;

McBama

or

O’boma

tee hee, I heard that on the radio today, made me laugh

This study establishes that the statements were false. Has anyone compiled the case that those who delivered these false statements did so knowing that they were false? It’s not that I have any doubt, but the Republicans will inevitably dismiss this report by blaming everthing on “bad intelligence,” and I’d like to have a document to point to that refutes that excuse.

Listen to the presser on C-SPAN3. They’ve verified that those issuing atatements knew differently from other internal documents that were available at the time.

Lewis, on CSpan3 NOW: says McClellan has book coming out in March, wherein (according to publisher’s release), he charges lying by the administration on the runup to & conduct of the war.

Finally from the NY Observer, this:

For Andrew and his wife, who have been married roughly a year, the essence of this conflict boils down to the fact that “she really thinks he’s a cheap huckster, and I think that Clinton is a cold-fish manipulator,” he said. Sometimes, he confessed, this has made him wonder whether he harbors a latent “discomfort about the idea of a woman president,” which, in turn, makes him “really uncomfortable.” On one occasion, all this agita spilled over into a drunken yelling match. But mostly, he said, it just hangs out on their couch with them, “a generalized kind of tension every time the TV’s turned to MSNBC.”

It was MSNBC that pitted renowned race scholar Michael Eric Dyson against his wife, the preacher and political commentator Marcia Dyson, on Hardball With Chris Matthews late last August.

Professor Dyson is an impassioned Barack booster who has spent the past few months penning odes and essays to the man he hopes to call president. Ms. Dyson is a Clinton backer of such ardor that she preached her way through the country last fall as part of a pro-Hillary “faith tour.” They began their confrontation civilly enough, but within minutes, he was talking over her, punctuating his points about Mr. Obama’s prescience about the Iraq invasion with a sharp up-down gesture. Meanwhile, she was calling him “Michael” with the unmistakable tone of annoyance particular to wives asking their husbands to do the dishes for the 1,000th time.

“I don’t want you two crazy kids coming back here and getting into divorce court next week,” said Mr. Matthews, whose more recent comments about the role Bill Clinton’s philandering played in catapulting Hillary to where she is today spurred such outrage from feminists that he was all but forced to offer a public apology. “Are the two of you going home together?”

(Same link as the others.)

10:30 EST: presser just ended.

I was a senior in high school in 1968, and I supported Eugene McCarthy — in hindsight, Bobby Kennedy was the better choice. The differences this time are less dramatic, but the polarization is very similar.

I’ll go into the Feb 5 caucuses supporting John Edwards, but may end up voting for Obama. I like Hillary, but I can’t stand her husband — and like he said in 1992, they are a two for one package deal.

I agree, wigwam.

Proving that someone lied is actually very difficult, because you have to know what they knew, when they knew it.

When Cheney said, “There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD” that to me is beyond question a lie, since he knew damn well that the intel on Saddam’s WMD was riddled with doubts.

But I, too, would like to see a specific study of this/timeline, to establish what exactly was a “lie”, which means the speaker knows what he’s saying is actually untrue, and what is actually misleading and/or willful misrepresentation, in which the speaker does something else.

Kabuki is right.
85-90% of Americans really are not cognizant of what is happening. There is a purposeful dumbing down of the populace by the corporate media.
They want docile consumers, not informed citizens. I am not optimistic.

the Republicans will inevitably dismiss this report by blaming everthing on “bad intelligence,” and I’d like to have a document to point to that refutes that excuse.

good, let them say it was “bad inteligence” becuase we will inundate them with officials on their own staff that told them there were no weapons

we will point out that it wasn’t “bad intelifence” it was manufactured inteligence

it was “team b” not the cia, it was the fake inteligence team cheney put together so he can have war, just as he put that team together under nixon;

“Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world.”
But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford’s Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and their cronies - would soon work for and/or run?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon’s treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear.

They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn’t know about, that the CIA didn’t know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld’s position a “complete fiction” and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

look familiar?

he did it again with Iraq and he TRIED to do it again with Iran

believe me, the proof abounds that this was NOT “bad intelifence”

1,734 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Blue Texan and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

“Could Sen. Clinton and Obama take time out from attacking each other and start focusing on the real war?”

You don’t really think that either of those corporate shills are gunna stop the food fight and shine a light on their empty suits ,do ya Brother Texan? Our only hope is that maybe Edwards gets enough traction in South Carolina to push Mrs. Clinton to third and then force Barak O’Lieberman ta go on record on specific issues includin’ the war, Social Security, healthcare and rescindin’ the tax cuts. If that doesn’t happen then we gotta turn Denver into a replay of the 1968 convention and force the nominee ta understand that she/he can’t win without the progressive base of the party.

By the way…how are things shakin’ out in the Texas senate race…are the Dems gunna put up a Ralph Yarborough or another corporate shill?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…THEY GOT OUR MONEY NOW THEY WANT OUR CHILDREN!!

ckls @ 36:

I’ll go into the Feb 5 caucuses supporting John Edwards, but may end up voting for Obama. I like Hillary, but I can’t stand her husband — and like he said in 1992, they are a two for one package deal.

This is exactly what I’ll end up doing as well. MN caucus is on so-called tsumani Tuesday–Feb. 5.

I am still undecided, believe it or not.

Again, for those with a strong stomach:

Veep to be on CSpan 3 talking “foreign intelligence” to the Heritage Foundation. Due: 11:05a.m. EST

They will also blame the Democrats. Given the current leadership of that party, the Republics will be successful.

If anyone has or could develop such a time line, it would surely be Marcy. ;-)

The whole world is watching.

I think John Dean put something together like this in “Worse than Watergate.” But I’m not sure he effectively distinguished between what Bush knew and what Bush said.

If Bush convinced himself Saddam was developing nukular weapons, as stupid and delusional as that is, then saying so isn’t technically a “lie.”

It’s misleading, it’s inaccurate, it’s wrong, it’s impeachable. It’s unforgivable. But it’s not a “lie” in the strictest sense of the word.

There is a purposeful dumbing down of the populace by the corporate media.

And by agribusiness. They chemicals they put in food these days makes for some seriously dumbed down and drugged out folks.

I’m waiting to see how the candidate reply to Jane’s and Glenn’s invitation to show some real leadership in the FISA fight.

The NY Observer endorses Obama. No surprise there if you know the demographics of Observer readership.

The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state’s presidential primary on Feb. 5.

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.

Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama’s issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama’s candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.

Democracy is the greatest strength of this still-young nation. Its living enactment is our gift to the world. It is the product of our best instincts and most powerful ideals. But it has been polluted, sullied and compromised by an obstructive administration that seems to have to have no particular regard for its attributes.

It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.

And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world.

Link: http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama

I’m more and more convinced to stand for Edwards.

Environmental policy should be cleaned up mightily under him, and I doubt it will be unless he’s in there and deeply involved in policy-making.

I still could vote for any of the 3 in the general election.

BTW: Blue Tex, I really appreciate your wonderful posts. Read every one. Thanks for not pulling punches.

That’s a Clintonesque distinction.

Go directly to Nancy. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200

And also this:

Just as in New York, John McCain is giving Rudy Giuliani hearty competition for support in New Jersey, with 29 percent of Republican voters now favoring McCain and 26 percent favoring Giuliani, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

Hillary Clinton maintains a commanding lead over Barack Obama, 49-32, while John Edwards has 10 percent of the vote among Democrats.

Obama, however, leads Clinton overwhelmingly among black Democrats, 64-27. Clinton leads among women voters.

Link: http://www.observer.com/

“Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world.”
But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford’s Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and their cronies - would soon work for and/or run?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon’s treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear.

They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn’t know about, that the CIA didn’t know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld’s position a “complete fiction” and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

we cannot deminish these crimes by comparing them to watergate, watergate was a friggin birthday party compared to what this administration has done

I don’t want to see no “GATE” attached to this fiasco, this fiasco needs it’s own name and future fiascos need to be associated with this one, not this one associated with watergate

WADR, Badwater, I think precision in language is really important, and when you accuse someone of lying, it helps your case if it’s true.

Surely Scott McClellan’s upcoming book (due out March 08) will make it very much more difficult for repubbles to blame others.

Publisher’s pre-release statement claims he charges administration with flat-out LYING to get us into the Iraq war.

Blue Texan @ 42:

I believe it. I was undecided too. I was going to flip a coin between Hillary and Obama. But that debate in Myrtle Beach did it for me. Hillary was mean…IMHO.

I thought he pulled back from that after the initial reports.

Is this the “Lie by Lie” Timeline you had in mind?

Curious Biodun (not now, but some time), I am curious about why you favor Hillary in this race.

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Now do teh Math…. 935 x media person x 1000 times replayed every hour and running on the screen crawl, pretty much equal to the current national debt… oh say $350 billion?

At least come Feb. 5 I get to caucus for Edwards.

Hillary was mean…IMHO.

Yeah, but you have to be mean. That’s the thing. Bubba’s right about it being a “contact sport.” The Clintons are ruthless, and a certain part of me admires that. I just wish they’d kept their powder dry for the other side.

I don’t recall the ‘04 primaries being this ugly.

Go directly to Nancy. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200

I believe the nsa has something on nancy that she cannot afford to go public, there is nothing else that makes sense, she MUST bring hearings of impeachment

how bad could that information be?

what could be SO bad she would allow this man to continue to destroy our country and her constitution?

what could POSSIBLY be so bad?

I’ll vote for Edwards in May and November. No matter what. Osama has too much Blue Dog support. Clinton is also too pro-corporate DLC. Just as 54% of all voting age adults chose not to vote for the two major party candidates in 2004, I’ll likely join that majority.

I’ve spent my life voting for guys representing 2% of my interests. Without better representation, none of the sloganeering about voting means squat.

And enough Dems won’t fight the FISA till it dawns on them that their campaign planning has been listened in on.

Could Sen. Clinton and Obama maybe take a time out from attacking each other and start focusing on the real war?

I wish they would, I’m guessing they won’t.

Impeach.

Remove.

Indict.

Imprison.

The only way to start fixing our country.

Er, Obama?

Another factor in the election is Zogby (generally right wing pollster). The NH polls that suggested a run away for Obama may have encouraged some to switch votes for Hillary after the smears. Now he has Obama way up in SC, and I wonder if this is a set up so that when she comes in as expected maybe 5-8 points lover, she can claim to have narrowed the lead. (Note that Zogby’s polls often change closer to what the outcome is just prior to the vote itself.

that’s a GREAT timeline, the information the president had vs the lie he told inspite of that information

these are lies, they wanted war, they’ve been itching for war ever since the maniac in the sick fraternity that calls themselves the PNAC was founded

Actually, I think that Bush can’t be accused of lying. He has always been just a puppet mouthing someone else’s words.

Impeach.

Remove.

Indict.

Imprison.

The only way to start fixing our country.

it is the only way we can begin to regain the integrity we once enjoyed

it is the only way forward, the only way we can move toward peace

Perhaps. I don’t know for certain.

I’m going by what the Founder of Center for Integrity, Chuck Lewis just said LIVE on CSpan 3. He said it, and then he backed up and reiterated they use the actual word “lied”.

If it’s not true, maybe it was the publishers who backed off of that. I’m only reporting what I just watched & heard from Lewis. He didn’t act as if he’s seen the book, just the publishers’ release.

Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, shooter’s up, live - sorta, omg, laughing. I can’t stand to turn the sound up. *click*

Speaking of lying sacks of shit, a spokesman for Harry Reid claimed this week that “Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill.” Mind you, the only reason we have this problem is that Reid:
o refused to honor Chris Dodd’s hold on the bill, thus violating long-standing senate protocols that he honors every time the Republicans invoke them.
o put forward the Intelligence Committee version of the bill, which contains immunity, rather than the Judiciary Committee’s version, which does not.

Glenzilla has the details in this update to his post of yesterday:

Anonymous Senate Democrats announce today in The New York Times that they are prepared to lose yet again to the omnipotent President — “Senate Democrats concede that they probably lack the votes needed to stop a White House-backed plan to give immunity to phone utilities that helped the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping” — while the ACLU commendably puts the blame exactly where it belongs:

Advocates for civil liberties fault the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, for what they see as a weak effort to block the White House immunity plan. Mr. Reid opposes immunity, but his decision to allow an initial vote on the Intelligence Committee plan, with immunity, has angered opponents.

“If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,” Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.”

Sen. Reid’s spokesman had the audacity to say this in response: “Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill.” The primary reason White House Victory on telecom immunity is so likely is because Reid exercised his power as Majority Leader to bring the bill to the floor in such a way as to maximize the White House’s prospects. That’s bad enough.

But to then send his spokesman out to claim that he’s going “to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill” makes it much worse, since that’s the opposite of the truth. He’s doing everything he can to ensure that immunity remains in the bill. If the Senate passes telecom immunity and vastly expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers, Bush, Cheney, ATT & and Verizon should (and, in various forms, likely will) send a hearty expression of thanks to two people: Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller.

I think a sizable chunk of the avid Hillary fans are there because they are convinced Hillary will be most supportive of the Irag (and now Iran?) war, as in the Haaratz listing.

Dude, Osama?

You graduate top in yer class of GOP Talking Points 101?

I have written at least a dozen emails to Nancy in the past few months. I don’t even get a “Hey, thanks for writing” form letter back. I have now resorted to sending form emails to all of my friends in her district asking them to write to her. Hopefully she will listen more closely to her constituents. Prolly not, but it’s worth a try.

Good morning pups!

Not impeaching Bush and Cheney effectively removes impeachment from the Constitution, thus destroying part of it. Future Administrations will be viewed by comparison to this one. It’s hard to imagine one being more impeachable. Since this one wasn’t, they won’t be either.

Richmond @ 61:

I don’t favor Hillary. See my 58 and 63…

Whatever it is doesn’t have to be true.

the Clintons plan to win at any cost. We will get both of them. I dont think it is good for this country,

If Bush convinced himself Saddam was developing nukular weapons, as stupid and delusional as that is, then saying so isn’t technically a “lie.”

It’s misleading, it’s inaccurate, it’s wrong, it’s impeachable. It’s unforgivable. But it’s not a “lie” in the strictest sense of the word.

The problem is that Bush seems quite capable of convincing himself of any number of things. The amount of disinformation and misinformation that his little brain is able to rationalize is phenomenal. Look how he has already rationalized the NIE. It doesn’t agree with his paradigm, it doesn’t jibe with his gut feelings, so it must be wrong, wrong, wrong regardless of what the hard evidence says. After all, the intelligence community is supposed to read tea leaves, not just sort thru legal evidence, right? So would you call his determination that the NIE was wrong a lie? A misrepresentation? A speculation? A fantasy?

Wow. Perfect. Thank you very much!

‘morning, eg…

how goes your world?

It is a problem that Bush is convinced of a lot of stuff that’s not true, and it’s a problem that he’s a lightweight who doesn’t read much and has been out to lunch for 8 years on just about everything.

“We can’t trust Bush because he’s always wrong” is a stronger meme than “We can’t trust Bush because he lied” — because it’s more accurate.

This point was made effectively in “Don’t Think of an Elephant” and I think it’s true.

I know you are an Edwards person , but I was thinking of the kingmaker role.

not so

the republicans will have no compunctions, they will impeach if Hillary is elected for showing her cleavage, they will impeach if oboma is elected for being attractive to white women, they will impeach if Edwards is elected for re instituting the new deal

this does NOT inoculate democrats against impeachment…mark those words

Morning egregious. Did you just wake up? *g*

Whatever it is doesn’t have to be true.

it has to be true for her to stand down

or it can be a threat?

for instance;

“you impeach me and there will be a crisis that makes 9/11 look like a sweet 16″

could it be a threat?

I wonder if at some point Dems will want to win and realize neither Hill or Obama czn?

shooter up sortalive on CSpan3, but ya can’t tell, ’cause it sounds as if he dragged out one of his old lyin’ speeches on terruh, seein’ as how it’s for the Foundered Hairyaged, who’re undoubtedly savouring every woid.
*reaches for garlic necklace*

could it be a threat?

I shudder at the thought of that but I do not believe this administration is above it

does anyone think this administration is above a threat?

perris I think you are right. Somebody (not necessarily Cheney/bush) has something on Nancy.

Hey OC, biodun,

Reporting to you from ?sunny Menlo Park California, where it has rained for the entire 4 days I’ve been here. Good Scottish weather. This is the final visit before the move which is in about 10 days. It’s all very weird but I’ve done difficult things before, and so can do one more. Support from family and friends including you pups has been just great, thanks to all.

Then again now that Murdoch is doing a fund raiser for Hillary and Fox is coming out in support of her, against Obama’s truth speak, I think it is time to throw in the towel
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._0123.html

surely not an eyebrowlift.

Let’s go after these idiots next because you know, we need “change”.

Why can’t we spend the money on this tripe on something that actually benefits the poor, the homeless, the down-and-out? Instead of staring at our navels until the next oligarch takes resident at 1600 Pennsylvania?

Richmond @ 87:

My 41 is pretty clear ain’t it?

Then again now that Murdoch is doing a fund raiser for Hillary

this is the only real reason I don’t want hillary

one of the things she MUST do is break up the murdock empire and she will not be able to because of his contributions

does anyone think this administration is above a threat?

Only the most naive. Look what they did on 9/11

They’re not coming home, and we’re not getting out of there until a DRAFT is enacted, and despite what you think, we’re closer to it. When that happens they will come home and many of the hundreds of initiatives you don’t know