...and went on a month long vacation.

This is becoming a theme. Sorry. It's just hard to catch the man actually at work.

Vacation.

So reports Bob "EVIL" Novak about the troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush plan was to have the number of troops down to 30,000 by the end of summer 2003. It almost sounds like a bad joke, since there are currently 135,000 troops in Iraq, and that number is considered inadequate for the job.

When the generals were made aware of the (badly missed) target of 30,000 it was perfectly reasonable for them to be outraged. This whole war has been a catastrophic miscalculation by the Bush administration... What's one more?

Please note that Overspun runs everything Bob Novak says through an intense series of bullshit detectors before posting. This one came up clean except for a gratuitous spin on Ted Kennedy's recent Iraq/Vietnam comments.

This is probably the toughest, and best, assessment of Rice's testimony I've seen. It's certainly stronger than Andrew Sullivan's lame retort.


From Wonkette.com

Read the transcript. It really says something that this is the worst they could find. Even reading the transcript out of context I don't see how a reasonable person can say that this even approaches indecency as previously defined by the Supreme Court. This is clearly an assault on free speech in this country, and we need to do something.

Clear Channel should fight it, but they won't. They will likely write off this fine as just another huge contribution to the Bush administration.

For more information on Clear Channel's intimate relationship with George W. Bush, click here.

Here's Howard's response from his site:

Howard's Response To The FCC's Actions:
"This is not a surprise. This is a follow up to the McCarthy type "witch hunt" of the administration and the activities of this group of presidential appointees in the FCC, led by "Colin Powell Jr." and his band of players. They and others (a senator from Kansas City to a congresswoman from New Mexico) are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch and how we should think about our lives. So this is not a surprise. It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. It's hard to reconcile this with the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". I'm sure what's next is the removal of "dirty pictures" like the 20th century German exhibit in a New York City Museum and the erotic literature in our libraries; they too will fall into their category of "evil" as well.
Howard Stern, April 8th 2004

That was the title of the famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. A month later bin Laden struck in the U.S.

How the hell do you spin that? Ask Condi, I guess...

There's talk of a possible fine coming out of the FCC today against Howard Stern for $495,000.

The irony is the fine isn't technically against Howard, but against his radio station. The owners of the radio stations where the complaint was made? Clear Channel.

The FCC is keeping the door open for fining additional radio stations for airing the same show.

Sign the petition, stop these morons before they kill free speech entirely.

... and the crowd doesn't appreciate it:

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important ...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president ...

RICE: ... that I also address ...

(APPLAUSE)

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will ...

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

(five minutes of restating the question later...)

RICE: I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

Imagine that over and over and you've seen the testimony.

Neal Pollack provides a summary of Condi Rice's testimony before she says a word:

Lie, lie, distortion, half-truth, pander, manipulation, pseudo-intellectual bombast. Dodge, dodge, feint, lie, dodge, avoid, subject change, lie, slander, pretentious generalization, character assassination, bald-faced lie ...

Link

Begala on today's Crossfire:

I want to come back to this question of credibility, because I think that's what this is all about and that why it's important that Dr. Rice be under oath. And I think we agree about that.

Yesterday, the White House spokesman complained that the last time Dr. Rice met with the commission, only five commission members showed up, suggesting maybe they weren't very interested in her testimony when it wasn't in public. What he failed to say is that the White House insisted that no more than three show up. That's a breathtaking lie.

This lie was passed on more than one Sunday morning show as well... seems like a White House sanctioned talking point.

...while Iraq burns.

O'Reilly on his show last night:

The Bush administration must come to grips with the true character of Iraq and begin to change strategy. The safety of the American military must become the top priority. The interest of the Iraqis themselves second. Unlike Afghanistan, where the majority of people seem to be cooperating with America, the Iraqis lay back, perhaps traumatized by decades of Saddam's oppression.

Understandable, but not acceptable. If these people won't help us, we need to get out in an orderly manner.

It's not surprising that once people started dying for this cause on a larger scale O'Reilly would get cold feet. He's the very definition of a chicken-hawk. Those of us who said from the beginning that we never should have invaded owe Bill a great big, "We told you so." I am disgusted that people are dying every day for this fake war, now O'Reilly's starting to realize we were right. Why does it take so many body bags to convince people?

O'Reilly was wrong about the invasion, and he's wrong about tucking our tail between our legs and running away now that his war is on. We started this war. Starting a war is a huge deal. We cannot run away from it. We need the rest of the world to help us fix this, but this President has shown he is incapable of doing such a thing.

This is The United States vs Iraq. It would be a different story if it were The World vs Iraq. If the rest of the world was united in this effort there would be no wavering, no second thoughts. All of these doubts would have been dealt with before an invasion. As it stands the world now hates us for ignoring them, for accusing them of being "with the terrorists", for not going along with the fiction that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

So, what's the quickest way to "fix" Iraq? Step one is to get a President that hasn't told the rest of the world to (in so many words) "fuck off." The entire Bush administration needs to be removed from office. If we impeached the president, we would be left with the puppet-master instead of the puppet. That's not a solution.

Unfortunately we have to wait until November to get the whole team out. If Watergate was a cancer on the Presidency, this Presidency is a cancer on America.

Sounds like tonight's Nightline will be worth watching.

"Nightline" expands on a book by James Mann that detailed the birth of the program, named "Continuity of Government," during the Reagan administration. Under the plan, if the United States were facing a nuclear attack, three teams of 50 federal officials would be sent from Washington to locations across the country -- each with a Cabinet member who was prepared to become president.

That is what happened on Sept. 11. "Questions were raised by talking heads about the president's courage or lack of it because he didn't return directly to Washington," "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel said yesterday. "This was absolutely the Armageddon plan put into effect."

Here's the excerpt of Mann's book from last month's Atlantic Monthly

Two stories came out today that I think are very closely related:
Ejaculation cures cancer and Ashcroft is making porn illegal.

This is Ashcroft's "War on your Prostate"

The Baltimore Sun article points out that Ashcroft, much like John Lithgow in "Footloose", doesn't dance because of his religion. So here we are, as a country, headed toward his baseline. No caffeine, no smoking, no gambling, no right to privacy. That's not an America I want to live in. Why are we allowing Ashcroft to turn our government into the Taliban? That's what Osama wanted all along.

Just asking...

The argument put forth by the Bush administration/United States of America in the Pledge "under God" case is that the reference to God is not a reference to God, but a reference to a reference to God. Read the article, Wieseltier's nailed it.

Breyer suggested that the God in "under God" is "this kind of very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing." And he posed an extraordinary question to Newdow: "So do you think that God is so generic in this context that it could be that inclusive, and if it is, then does your objection disappear?"

Needless to say, Newdow's objection did not disappear, because it is one of the admirable features of atheism to take God seriously. Newdow's reply was unforgettable: "I don't think that I can include 'under God' to mean 'no God,' which is exactly what I think. I deny the existence of God." The sound of those words in that room gave me what I can only call a constitutional thrill. This is freedom. And he continued: "For someone to tell me that 'under God' should mean some broad thing that even encompasses my religious beliefs sounds a little, you know, it seems like the government is imposing what it wants me to think in terms of religion, which it may not do. Government needs to stay out of this business altogether."

[...]

In his intervention at the Court, Justice Stevens recalled a devastating point from the fascinating brief submitted in support of Newdow by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, which asserted that "if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously," that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God, "then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment" that "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain."

I've desperately been searching for well reasoned explanations of the opposing view of this, but so far all I've illogical arguments centering on just what the article exposes- the politicalization of God- when you dumb down the concept of God to the point that saying "God" is no longer a reference to God you've already lost the fight.

The separation of Church and state is a good thing for both sides. I just hope this Supreme Court can put aside their ridiculous partisanship and rule on the law. (Yes, I'm referring to Florida...)

As bad as things were the last few days in Iraq, they got worse today.

So many were making fun of "Dr. Doolittle" who couldn't find those weapons littering the plains of Iraq. I mean, come on, the place was lousy with 'em. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat, right?

Blix says,

"It's good that Saddam and his terror regime is gone, but when you have to settle the accounts, the negative things are heavier due to the many people who have been killed in the war and the many who will die due to the terrorism the war fuelled, [...] Also the western governments' credibility and UN'’s authority have been damaged."

Hey, he's right. Again.

Why We Went In: Version 10.0
by P.J. Crowley and Robert O. Boorstin
March 19, 2004

In the year since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has repeatedly shifted its justification for going to war and constantly changed its story on intelligence, the United Nations, reconstruction, political transition and the cost to the American taxpayer. More than anything, the administration's war in Iraq resembles a software program that, at first, works brilliantly, but then catches the user in a cycle of "fatal error" messages.

Here then, in Silicon Valley terms, is a review of the Bush administration's year in Iraq:

Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.

* Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
* Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
* Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
* Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
* Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
* Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
* Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
* Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise

Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.

* Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
* Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
* Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
* Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
* Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
* Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
* Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
* Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
* Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
* Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
* Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program related activities"
* Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
* Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people - Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing
more

by eavila



by BobTheDemonOtter

Here are the originals.
Link [fark.com]

When the June 30th date was set it seemed like a long way off- plenty of time for those insurgents to lay down their weapons and start throwing roses at our boys instead of bullets. Plenty of time for them to come around to our way of thinking. Well... it hasn't exactly worked out that way.

Iraq is now on the brink of civil war. In the wake of increased violence the President has held firm on the June 30th hand over date.

The date will change- it's unfortunate, but it will. I just wish the President once in a while could look at the reality of the situation and make some intelligent judgments. I'm nobody, and I can see that Iraq isn't ready for this- particularly on a timetable based on when the US elections are held.

June 30th is a date which would have been ideal if everything in Iraq had gone according to the Bush administration's original "cake-walk" plan, which, as I'm sure you know, involved Iraqis gazing lovingly at our soldiers as we freed them by bombing the shit out of them. That lovely scene, then pretty pictures of Bush at the handover ceremony months later, cheering on the new government of a free and happy Iraq.

It's going to be moved back, or Iraq will implode into a civil war. It's sadly that simple. It's not that I want this to happen- I don't. Just looking at the situation, that's the obvious conclusion to draw. Unfortunately the President can't seem to grasp it.

When the 40,000 subscribers to Reason, the monthly libertarian magazine, receive a copy of the June issue, they will see on the cover a satellite photo of a neighborhood - their own neighborhood. And their house will be graphically circled.

Drip, drip, drip...

I was going to post video, but that's just tempting fate at this point. Here's the transcript of Russert talking to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the administration:

MR. RUSSERT: There's a report in a British newspaper, The Independent, about a former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance, says she's provided information to the panel investigating the attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qaida's plan to attack the U.S. with aircraft months before the strike happened. Sibel Edmonds is her name. She said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission and provided information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting an attack using aircraft was months away, that terrorists were in place. Is she credible?

MR. KEAN: We've had all her testimony. It's under investigation. I can't say--we're certainly not there that she's credible or uncredible yet.

MR. HAMILTON: We've talked to her.

MR. KEAN: Yeah.

MR. HAMILTON: We've talked to people she has identified. We've looked at documents. Look, the commission gets leads by the dozens, every day. I had a dozen of them last week. And we do our level best to follow up on all of them. In this case, and several others that have been prominent in the European press, we have been very, very careful in our research. We're not totally completed with it, as the governor has mentioned.

Newsweek says:

9/11 commission executive director Philip Zelikow faxed a photograph to the White House counsel's office with a note saying that if the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the commission, the photograph would "...be all over Washington in 24 hours," Newsweek has learned. The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed presidential chief of staff Adm. William D. Leahy, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wow.

Link

Pimpin' the 9/11 committee's upcoming report like a 6 o'clock newscast, the chairman hinted today that there would "surprises" in the committee's findings. Hard to tell if this is the "no shit, Sherlock, the Bushies didn't take terrorism seriously" stuff that we already know, or if there's a legitimate bombshell on the way. One possibility? This story about a translator (who's kind of a babe and has a way cool name, Sibel Edmonds) claiming that she translated documents that warned of the attacks ahead of time. I realize for most blog readers this is old news, but it's interesting that the charges haven't caught on in the mainstream media (except CBS, which ran a story here). They're either, 1.) Wild ass allegations nobody believes, 2.) So significant that everybody's afraid to run with them because it would mean the end of the Bush administration, post haste. Again, I'm sort of stating the obvious here, but her story just cracked my consciousness (thanks to Air America, bless its anti-Bush soul). I bet a lot of other people are just hearing about this as well.