Sunday, March 19, 2006

the headline says it all

Iraqi People Hopeless in 3rd Year of Occupation
By M. Alihan Hasanoglu, Cihan News Agency, Bagdat (Baghdad) Image hosting by Photobucket
Published: Sunday, March 19, 2006

The situation of Iraq and the Iraqi people is still ambiguous on the 3rd anniversary of the Iraqi occupation that the US realized on claims that weapons of mass destruction existed in the country. The US had promised to bring democracy to Iraq with the occupation.

The country is far from the wealth and democracy that the US promised to bring before the Iraq war. The people are concerned and hopeless most about the inability to maintain security in the country. While dozens of people lose their lives in violent incidents every day, the recent Shiite-Sunni tension is dragging the country to a civil war. The Iraqi people are at such a point that they miss the days of Saddam’s era and they demand the end of occupation, which makes their life even harder. The ethnic and sectarian division is seen as the biggest obstacle before the democratic structure in Iraq. - LINK

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

the ABA notifies Bush that he's a lawbreaker

I think if anybody knows what's legal and what's not it is the ABA. From, here are some exerpts from a letter that they wrote to the criminal-in-chief:
RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association calls upon the President to abide by the limitations which the Constitution imposes on a president under our system of checks and balances and respect the essential roles of the Congress and the judicial branch in ensuring that our national security is protected in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association opposes any future electronic surveillance inside the United States by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. (FISA), and urges the President, if he believes that FISA is inadequate to safeguard national security, to seek appropriate amendments or new legislation rather than acting without explicit statutory authorization

I wonder if anybody read this letter to Bush? Maybe they could tape it to the inside of his copy of my pet goat.

Call your Senator, tell them you agree with the ABA and you support Fiengold's censure motion.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

too little too late

On Friday, March 9, 2006, on Countdown, aired on MSNBC, host Keith Olbermann began his show by highlighting Sandra Day O’Connor’s warning of dictatorship in America. “The beginnings of a dictatorship?” asked Olbermann. “Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O‘Connor actually talked about the beginnings of a dictatorship here in America? A dictatorship, D-I-C-T-A-T-O-R-ship? A dictatorship, did you say?” While the speech O’Connor delivered at Georgetown University was not recorded, NPR’s Washington correspondent Nina Totenberg was there. According to Totenberg, O’Connor, responding to recent conservative attacks and threats made on federal judges, said “we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.”

Well......duh, it's nice of Sandra Day O’Connor to speak out now, but she's one of those who are responsible for the mess we're in today. From Bush vs Gore:
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith. It is so ordered.
Did you forget that you voted for this abomination and resigned while the monster is still in office allowing him to appoint another knuckledragger to the highest court of the land. And now you decide to speak out, sorry .....but it's too little, too late.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Propaganda 101

You've got to read this piece of crap letter I got back from Sweet Melissa (my congresswoman), when I wrote to her complaining about Bush's illegal spying. It is sickening.

Dear Mr. X:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the National Security Agency (NSA) foreign intercepts. As your congresswoman, I appreciate your input as well as the opportunity to address your concerns.

I agree with you that protecting the personal freedoms and privacy of United States citizens is essential to maintaining democracy in our country. However, the safety and security of our homeland and its citizens is equally important. While it is true that we have not been struck since the September 11 terrorist attacks, that does not mean we are safe from future attacks. As I am sure you are aware, just last month Osama Bin Laden released an audiotape with direct threats to U.S. citizens.

As far as the intercepts go, the NSA is playing a crucial role in the War on Terror. The NSA understands that we are at war and that we face determined enemies who will strike without warning. It is also essential that we learn the intentions of the enemies before they strike. The NSA works to protect us, and their efforts are a crucial part in protecting the homeland and achieving success in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The communication intercepts do not apply to phone calls placed within the United States . They are only being used to intercept international calls associated with terrorist groups that may endanger our national security. The intention is not to deny citizens their civil liberties or invade their privacy. This monitoring practice is also grounded in precedent. Since the Revolutionary War, intercepting communications between our enemies abroad and their potential agents in this country has been a vital part of protecting our national security.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me, and I appreciate your input on this matter. If I can be of further assistance regarding any federal issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office. I encourage you to visit my webpage at for an update on my work in Congress.

H Very truly yours,
Melissa Hart Member of Congress


Has Roves' fingerprints all over it.

Lieberman is first again

Wow....that was quick, Holy Joe couldn't fucking wait to stab one of his Democratic brethern in the back. After Senator Feingold's passionate appeal for censure today the AP reports:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.

Well, duh...what do you call what you did to President Clinton, back when you should have been defending him?
But I believe that the harm the president's actions have caused extend beyond the political arena. I am afraid that the misconduct the president has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong in our society.

Mr. President, I said at the outset that this was a very difficult statement to write and deliver. That is true, very true. And it is true in large part because it is so personal and yet needs to be public, but also because of my fear that it will appear unnecessarily judgmental.
Lieberman you are a spineless little Republican suck up, and I hope Lamont kicks your ass come November.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

National insecurity

There's an excellent op-ed piece in today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette about Bush's illegal spying program:

National insecurity / The FISA 'fix' would jeopardize civil liberties


The odor of what has happened and what the new White House-Senate proposal would institutionalize is clearly "police state," and for no good reason. FISA makes possible all of the surveillance of terrorists that is needed, with no delays and with effective oversight by a responsible U.S. court. There is no reason to change it. - read it all

(photo from Random Acts of Love)

Go Molly

Molly speaks for me

Enough of the D.C. Dems
By Molly Ivins
March 2006 Issue

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.

2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.

3) Single-payer health insurance.

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there’s nobody in Washington and we can’t find a Democratic governor, let’s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.

What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let’s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has “all the money sewed up.”

I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.

We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain’t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let’s go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Honor takes a back seat

After Bush and Rove trashed McCain and his family in 2000:
Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a lunatic self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality." In the spirit of Segretti, Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family.
Here's McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference:
John McCain told MSNBC in an exclusive interview late Friday that President Bush is having difficulties right now and that Republicans should stand beside him.
“He's having trouble right now. We Republicans all know that. That’s when he needs us to stand by him. He doesn’t need us when his numbers are 65. He needs us now," McCain said in an exclusive interview with Hardball after addressing the Southern Republican Leadership Conference Friday evening in Memphis. "That’s my only message," McCain said.

If people are looking for candidates in 2008 with no honor or integrity, I guess McCain's got a chance. But I think people are pretty much fed up with all that.

Be heard


If this is the way you feel, Jane at firedoglake has started "The Roots Project," and this week we're targeting Pennsylvania (read all about it here, and here) and Glenn has some great talking points. For Pennsylvania Newspaper info go here. If you're really ambitious or want a bigger list and don't mind a little digging, go here.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

how low can the Bush Administration go?

February 15th, 2006 2:24 pm
U.S. State Department Rejects Visa Applications of Iraqi Women Whose Families Were Killed by U.S. Troops

Anwar Kadhim Jawad, her husband and their four children were driving down the road from their house in Baghdad when they were caught in a hail of bullets from U.S. soldiers. There was no checkpoint and no warning. Anwar's husband, son and two daughters were shot dead. Only Anwar, who was pregnant at the time, and her 14-year-old daughter (left), survived. The US Army compensated Anwar with $11,000.

US State Department Rejects Visa Applications of Iraqi Women Whose Families Were Killed by US Troops

Women had planned to tell their stories to US policy makers and the public as part of an International Women’s Day peace campaign.

Washington, DC – Two Iraqi women whose husbands and children were killed by US troops during the Iraq war have been refused entry into the United States for a speaking tour. The women were invited to the US for peace events surrounding international women’s by the human rights group Global Exchange and the women’s peace group CODEPINK.

Bill of Rights- Born 1791 Died 2006

Another nail in the coffin

Remember all those freedoms you were taught about in school? You know the ones that your parents and grandparents fought to perserve. Freedoms like the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. Well they've all been handed to the Bush Administration, by the fascist enablers in his own party and by the "it's more important for me to not look weak on the WOT and possibly get called names by the fascists (which they will anyway), than to actually perform my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution" Democrats. Democrats like, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy?, BARBARA BOXER, WHAT THE F*CK ARE THEY THINKING? Here's the entire list.

Must be scandal fatigue, but where was the outcry from those of us who think the Constitution requires defending. Are there only ten patriots in the Senate?

Russ Feingold, D-Wi; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.; Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.; Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Carl Levin, D-Mich.; and Ron Wyden, D-Ore

Maybe some of the provisions will be challenged in court and eventually thrown out. It seems like the courts are our only hope.

(photo from