Speaking of the Fab job Rummy is doing (see post below):

The Stakeholder: Perjury

Rumsfeld, under oath before the Senate: "Any instructions that have been issued or anything that's been authorized by the department was checked by the lawyers . . . and deemed to be consistent with the Geneva Conventions."

Seattle Times (May 23, 2004) : "Presented last fall with a detailed catalog of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S. military responded Dec. 24 with a confidential letter to a Red Cross official asserting that many Iraqi prisoners were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions."

George the chimp says: I'm never disappointed in my Secretary of Defense. He's doing a fabulous job, and America is lucky to have him in the position he's in.

- rob 6:07 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The "Notes" of a President



Atrios has this excellent picture on his site... what is it? Well here's a small reproduction of the original:

.
(Click here for the huge original photo.)

Someone took that photo, cropped Bush's cabinet meeting "notes" and flipped them so they were more readable.

So at the end of a meeting with his cabinet, this is what George wrote down:

??? was a threat -
Sworn enemy of US
Destabilizing Force in volatile part of world.
??????
Ties to terrorist orgs
(and I can't make out anything in the last two sentences)

So over a year after the war with Iraq began Bush's talking points are exactly the same but he still needs to write them down. Jeez... even I have them memorized by now. Is this what was discussed at the meeting? Please, he wasn't interested in the meeting... he was just getting ready for some questions from the press.

Meeting the press must be really scary, what if they ask tough questions? Hey wouldn't it be cool if who he'd ask to question him had been pre-screened for him? You know... making it less scary?

Well what's this on the next page? Why it is a list of names in ALL CAPS (in what looks like a different handwriting). All I can make out is:

Deb ???
David Morgan
Roger ????
John Roberts (?)
Bob ????
Ann Compton

Oh, its a list of White House press corp reporters. Hey do you think that is the order of who George will ask?

Let's see: From the transcript available at Whitehouse.gov:

President Discusses Economy, Iraq in Cabinet Meeting

I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb, why don't you lead it off?

Whoa! Deb was first on the list too! What a wild coincidence.

Let's see who he'll ask next.

Let's see -- Morgan.

Whoa. David Morgan! He's second on the list. Wow, who'd of thunk it. George gets the list of who to call ahead of time. But he's so good at pretending isn't he? "Deb, why don't you lead it off?" Yeah Deb why not, I mean since Rove told you you'd be first. Now get that softball ready. Let's see -- Morgan. Its like he's pretending to think of who to ask next. It's kind of funny. Here's some more fun excerpts from that press conference:

The other thing we talked about was our firm resolve to spread freedom, and therefore peace, around the world. We fully understand terrorists will try to shake our will, to try to shake our confidence, to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And they won't succeed. Iraq will be free, and a free Iraq is in our nation's interest. A free Iraq will make the world more peaceful. A free Iraq will be an ally of those nations who honor human rights and human dignity and the aspirations of men and women everywhere. A free Iraq will make America more secure.

Okay that isn't from his notes... he seemed to be able to spontaneously explain world policy at a third grade level. Good for George.

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Also not from his notes, but a great sentence anyway, reminds me of a quote from him from back in August, 2002 when talking about Saddam, "and when I say I'm a patient man-- I mean I'm a patient man."

Anyway back to the cabinet meeting:

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations...

Wow, those notes sure came in handy there. And we know about the weapons of mass destruction that he used against his own people because we just got the purchase receipts from the Reagan estate... right George? I mean wasn't that why Rummy went to visit in the eighties? To see how Saddam was enjoying the merchandise?

Speaking of Rummy, let's have more from George:

I'm never disappointed in my Secretary of Defense. He's doing a fabulous job, and America is lucky to have him in the position he's in.

And the hair of his, why its just Fab too!

- rob 6:02 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Oil chief: my fears for planet
Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".
In an interview in today's Guardian Life section, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good."

His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh...

Ah well.... fill'er up?

- rob 5:26 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Pothole Watch

In the midst of all the turmoil surrounding Iraq and the 9/11 Commission report, President Bush took time out to tour the Pac. NW and make his famous pothole "joke"....

"Congressman Adam Smith is with us today. I appreciate you being here, Congressman. Thank you for coming. (Applause.) The Lieutenant Governor of the state of Washington, Brad Owens, and his wife Linda, is with us. Thank you for coming, Governor. I appreciate you being here. (Applause.) I know we've got state and local officials here. If there's any mayors here, make sure you fill the potholes. (Laughter and applause.)"

At this point, I think that if he's not careful, he'll begin to repeat the joke to the same audience....

- B 3:25 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

He Hit the Trifecta, Remember?

Despite Dick Cheney's furious attempts to malign the New York Times for reporting the findings of the 9/11 Commission ("They do a lot of outrageous things," Mr. Cheney, appearing on "Capital Report" on CNBC, said of the Times, referring specifically to a four-column front page headline that read "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Mr. Cheney added: "The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said") -- and George Bush's infuriating tautologies ("The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda"), otherwise known as the Because I Say So defense (works great for four years olds) -- some of us connected the dots before they were even dots, including Bush himself. This column is from June 2002:

Bush, in the weeks before September 11, pledged to honor the sanctity of the Social Security lockbox except in the event of recession, war, or a national emergency. But after "everything changed" on 9/11, he reportedly gloated to his budget director, Mitch Daniels, "Lucky me--I hit the trifecta!" At the time, this comment (a variation of which is being recycled for laughs at current GOP fundraisers) seemed merely offensive. But in light of revelations that Bush's August 6 briefing memo was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.," Bush's "luck" and weird prescience are worth more than passing scrutiny. . . .

For now, it is difficult to say who knew what when because the administration is not exactly being forthcoming, preferring instead to use the scandal as an excuse to broaden the FBI's snoop powers. However: there was a potential motive for the administration to sit on perceived terrorist threats. . . .

Think back to the days before 9/11. The topic on everyone's lips (Condit aside) was: what will happen when budget realities force Bush to raid Social Security? He had explicitly promised during his campaign to establish a contingency fund for severe emergencies that would keep Social Security untouched. But the economy was tanking and the costs of the tax cut made the raid inevitable. Even Daniels acknowledged that the government would be forced to tap Social Security to the tune of $14 billion to fund pending legislation. Strangely, Bush kept insisting, "We can work together to avoid dipping into Social Security." But, beginning August 24, he gave himself an escape clause: "I've said that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in case of an economic recession or war." (Three days earlier he had said that there should be "special consideration" in the budget for these contingencies. Otherwise, this was completely new rhetoric.)

September 4: businessman and commentator Ben Cohen ran a mock "help wanted" ad reading, "Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate." Same day: a CBS poll found that 66 percent of Americans did not think a recession (extant, but not yet confirmed) was reason enough to tap Social Security. September 6: Bush invented another exception. "The only time to use Social Security money is in times of war, times of recession, or times of severe emergency." September 11: he had all three. Lucky Bush.

These extraordinary coincidences have gone unremarked in the media, who have entirely missed that the terms of the "trifecta"--note that the word connotes something you bet on--was never mentioned until two-and-a-half weeks after Bush's August 6 briefing and days before 9/11. (He has since claimed the 'trifecta' was a campaign promise. This is a lie.) It is sickening to contemplate an administration intentionally looking the other way while terrorists scheme so that whatever havoc they wreak can provide cover for the president to raid Social Security.

Bush did a lot more than just raid Social Security: He emptied out the U.S. Treasury like a piggy bank and used all your children's credit cards to mortgage their future as far as anyone's eyes can see, then pulled the wool over them. He bankrupted our standing in the eyes of the world. And what of those billions promised to defense contractors mentioned in this article? By June 2002 it was too soon to say; by February 2003 it wasn't. In fact it was a done deal in November 2000. "Sickening" hardly describes it. Something to chew on, if you have any doubts about "intelligence failures."

- Michael 10:30 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

The blame game

When will the Chimper realize that accepting blame is not the worst thing in the world? In fact, it too, is a sign of the character that he supposedly has. But he thinks it is a sign of weakness, so, "Never, NEVER I SAY! Will the Chimperor accept blame! NEVER!" Of what do I speak?

Of Bush's actions on that fateful day in September. He went into a school room to read to children *after* he knew of the first plane and he *remained* in the room of 2nd graders, talking nicely about a FUCKING GOAT (to borrow a line from an Edward Albee play) *after* he heard of the second. Wasting time, time, time. Tick tock, tick tock. Until about 9:30. WHY? Because, his administration has said "'The president told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis,' the 29-page document continues. Bush saw the phones and pagers of reporters starting to ring as they stood behind the children in the classroom and 'felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.'"

What's happening? Uh, excuse me, but your Chief of Staff just said "We're under attack." What, exactly, else do you need there? Besides, it wasn't live coverage. The country couldn't have seen an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. Previously, he's stated that he didn't want to frighten the children.

A NORAD general has said that if they had had a little more time, they would have been able to launch fighters that would have intercepted the flights on 9/11. If notified by the FAA at the time of the hijackings, the general did not hesitate to say "Yes, we could shoot down the airplanes."

NORAD was not notified about the first plane until just 9 minutes prior to it hitting the WTC. That would be about 8:35. But when it was, it then got planes scrambled. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon until 9:43. Over an hour later. Flight 93 didn't "crash" until 10:10. (See
here for a chronology)

So I'll give Bush a break. I won't hold him accountable for the first two planes. On that fateful day, he really couldn't have done anything at all to stop the first two. But instead of wasting 30 minutes talking to school children and taking questions, couldn't he have said, something like "I have to go, there is an important event happening" and left, ordering his military to be on the lookout for more hijacked planes? OR SOMETHING? I'm no rocket surgeon, but a couple of planes leaving Langley, Va. and traveling at about 1200 miles an hour could pretty much get to the DC area in about, oh, five minutes. Giving them 30 minutes to get up in the air, that means they're over DC at about 9:10 am. If only they'd had orders from their commander in chief that day they (not my supposition here remember, but a general from NORAD) would have been able to shoot down the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. That would have saved about 100 souls. But they didn't. Bush hid behind some kids until just about 13 minutes before the Pentagon hit, giving no orders, taking no calls, providing no leadership.

So the Chimp has to come up with excuses for his behavior. He can't take any blame. There was no way to have predicted this. Couldn't connect the dots. Couldn't frighten a class of 25 2nd graders over saving about 100 lives.

Just admit George, just once, that you MADE A MISTAKE. That *YOU* were scared and didn't know what to do. It's really ok. Americans do not expect that their president be a mind reader. You didn't have to know about the attacks. We don't want someone to be perfect. You really are allowed to screw up. But we also really like presidents who can admit their failures and ask us for forgiveness when necessary. Just ask us George. It's a hell of a lot better than being viewed as a liar.

- B 6:04 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The Kool Aide Wears Off At The New York Tiimes
And they awake screaming

The Plain Truth

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.
...

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

- rob 5:03 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush Says Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said ``numerous contacts'' between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.

``There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaeda,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. ``This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.''

One of those contacts was a evening where the night air weighed heavily with the potential for Saddam and bin Laden's relationship to move up to the next level. Stepping into one of Saddam's love shacks bin Laden held the very tasty layer cake that he had spent all day in the cave preparing. Bin Laden's sweat dripped from his brow and he worried that it may defile the frosting he had worked on for so long.

bin Laden: Saddam, please enjoy this cake as a symbol of us working together to take down the great Satan.
Saddam: Oh, Osama though I haven't felt this much joy since I tried to kill Dubya's daddy, I cannot continue this relationship. I...ummm... I hate chocolate.
bin Laden: You accursed heathen! You use my cake as an excuse because you hate to admit you still have feelings for Rummy!
Saddam: Oh, you foul Dog! Those memories of Donald's sweet smile and firm handshake has haunted me lo these many years! Your accusation only brings that sting back to me. Don had such sweet words, and his poetry entered my hallow heart and filled it. Though he left me, I can not wish any harm to come to him. Osama.. our relationship is over.

The rest is history.

- rob 4:56 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Raucous bar scene emerges in Baghdad's green zone

In a city where few people drink, Baghdad's sealed-off green zone counts at least seven bars, including a Thursday night disco, a sports bar, a British pub, a rooftop bar run by General Electric, and a bare-bones trailer-tavern operated by the contractor Bechtel.

If they get the kinda money Halliburton gets Bechtel swears they'll install AC.

Only employees of the occupation are welcome in most of them. U.S. troops ejected a reporter from the basement sports bar a few months ago, at the instance of Coalition Provisional Authority employees drinking inside.

The plushest tavern is the CIA's rattan furnished watering hole, known as the ''OGA bar.'' OGA stands for ''Other Government Agency,'' the CIA's low-key moniker.

The OGA bar has a dance floor with a revolving mirrored disco ball and a game room. It is open to outsiders by invitation only. Disgruntled CPA employees who haven't wangled invites complain that the CIA favors women guests.

- rob 4:09 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Lies and Damn Lies

Can anyone really doubt now that the administration made up the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection? Or if not "made up" then grossly exaggerated and overstated the connections to allow people to draw the conclusion that Iraq was behind 9/11? After looking at thousands of separate documents and investigating hundreds of leads, the 9/11 commission has issued a damning portrait of the Bushies assertions. Bush and crew have tried to argue that they never said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were close. Poor Chimper doesn't remember writing this letter to Congress. Oh, yeah, that was the letter saying "I'm invading Iraq for the following reasons...." One of which just happens to be that Iraq had supported al-Qaeda and was behind the WTC attacks.

"We're not the only ones" the Bushies claim. "We were taken in. Look," they say, "Hillary Clinton thought it too!!!" (Operating on the theory that whenever things look bad, drag out the Clintons if you need political cover.) Uh, sure. Except last time I checked, Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, was not a fricken intelligence agency! SO WHAT if she thought that. She got her information from, uh, YOU.

Now the only question is whether we (the nation as a whole) are going to give him a pass on this one too.

For more reading, find the 9/11 commission staff report here.

And just in case you were going to read that report, let me remind you of Clinton's cock.

- B 1:41 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Yet again the Daily Show proves that a comedy show can provide more accurate news coverage (and certainly more entertaining analysis) then any of the 24 hour news channels: War on Error

(requires real video unfortunately).

- rob 1:53 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Because it is patriotic to stop free speech

Stop Michael Moore! is a website that urges you to call and write theater owners throughout American and "urge" them to not show Fahrenheit 9/11.

As they state it: This movie is nothing more than a political campaign advertisement against the war on terrorism, our troops and President Bush.

So why on earth are ANY movie theaters showing this film? “Fahrenheit 9/11” should be shown as a recruiting video for Al-Qaeda, not in our movie theaters.

Please join us in telling the movie theater companies below your opinion as it relates to their attempt to profit from the showing of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Since we are the customers of the American movie theatres it is important for us to speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don’t want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema.

It probably should not come as a surprise that the group behind the site is a PR firm in San Francisco with GOP connections. Though they are trying to hide this information by updating their DNS record (every website has a DNS record this is supposed to list the owner of said site) to remove all information that relates to the PR firm (even going so far as updating their phone number to the phone number of a bar in Sacramento).

"Urging" has been redefined in Bush's America. As Some theater owners are reporting receiving death threats. So why not use the list provided by these wannabe censors and thank them for either showing or even considering showing the film. Be polite. And, of course, seeing the film the weekend of June 25th will send even a stronger message.

"Urging" people to not show something that may be interpretted as anti-Bush or anti-Iraqi war isn't limited to just films. An art dealer in San Francisco was recently urged to not display a painting.

Artist inspired by Iraq prison abuse assaulted

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison - a black eye delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to a painting that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners.

The assault outside the Capobianco gallery in the city's North Beach district Thursday night was the worst in a string of verbal and physical attacks directed at Lori Haigh since the artwork was installed at her gallery May 16.

San Francisco police are investigating and have stepped up patrols around the gallery. But Haigh decided to close the gallery indefinitely, citing concern for the safety of her two children, ages 14 and four, who often accompanied her to work.

Guy Colwell's painting, titled Abuse, depicts three U.S. soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The soldier in the foreground has a blood-spattered U.S. flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman.

For more read this post at Orcinus: Proto-fascist thuggery

- rob 1:51 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

A nice moment on David Letterman last night, after Dave finished another one of his dead pan tributes to George Bush (this one was George explaining to an audience the definition of 24/7), Dave mumbled "I'm going to miss that guy," which set the audience cheering wildly. When Bush's approval rating drops under forty are you supposed to send flowers? My edition of Emily Post doesn't seem to cover that.

- rob 12:08 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden

WASHINGTON (AP) - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
...

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."

Cheney isn't actually lying though because the "undisclosed location" he's been hiding away in (just north of Thurmont, MD [population 5,588 - home of the Cozy Diner] in case you were wonder) has a severe mushroom problem, leaving its residents severly detached from reality.

Also he isn't lying because according to Chris Mathews on Hardball (MSNBC) last night you can't call someone a liar unless you can see into their soul. What the Hell?

- rob 12:08 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

B in the great post below about an Oregonian example of power corrupting mentions a comment I made in response to his post about conservative hypocrisy.

At the time the comment was just a stream of consciousness rambling and was meant to be tongue in cheek. Reading it over it sadly isn't that far off the mark, so I thought I'd elevate it up to the main page:

Conservatives and the need for law and societal stigma

I'm beginning to feel that liberals really don't understand conservatives. Yes some times conservatives are projecting, but sometimes, from their point of view, they are exactly right.

They condemn liberals because liberals try to reduce the stigma of divorce. Now, conservatives say "people will just get a divorce when they feel like it." Liberals just think that is insane but for conservatives it may be accurate. It is stigma and laws that keep a conservative in line. Nothing else.

Conservatives want many religious mores to become law. Why? Because if they are not law the conservatives will break them. Thus you have the religious moral conservative drunks gambling away their child's college money at a sleazy casino. "but... sniff... if only things like that were illegal. Then I wouldn't do it."

The whole "Personal Responsibility" line is the greatest projection in political history. Liberals are saying "make it legal, if you don't like it don't do it." Conservatives say "I don't like it, make it illegal." But what they don't say, but in their hearts they know it to be true, "I don't like it, make it illegal, make it stigmatized or I will do it."

Even when things are fine and decent, but their teachings have hang ups about it (say like homosexuality), the conservatives get angy and liberals get confused. When the right fights against gay marriage and says things like "it'll lead to people marrying animals." Liberals look at them like they are insane. But the religious right is very concerned, like most homophobes they are insecure of their sexuality, and want to keep homosexuality stigmitized (and better yet, wouldn't it be great if it was illegal) so they can keep themselves on the straight and narrow (as they see it). They are so self-unaware, so without personal control (relying on social, religious, and legal control) that as far as they know they themselves might marry dogs.

Hypocracy is the sin to teens, when they are filled with rightious power. Hypocracy to adult conservatives is a way of life; it is because they are fearful of themselves. They say we are above animals but in their dark hearts they think of themselves as horribly base, needing laws and peer pressure to keep them inline.

Its all so horribly sad.

- rob 9:59 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Political Memo: Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It

You go Ron: "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man," he told mourners gathered at sunset at the Reagan presidential library. "But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians - wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."

The remarks caused jaws to drop in California and Washington.

- rob 1:41 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

More Crisco Kid... I mean Asscroft... wait wait... sorry sorry... more Ashcroft

Krugman: Travesty of Justice

No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history.

For this column, let's just focus on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror. Before 9/11 he was aggressively uninterested in the terrorist threat. He didn't even mention counterterrorism in a May 2001 memo outlining strategic priorities for the Justice Department. When the 9/11 commission asked him why, he responded by blaming the Clinton administration, with a personal attack on one of the commission members thrown in for good measure.

We can't tell directly whether Mr. Ashcroft's post-9/11 policies are protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. But a number of pieces of evidence suggest otherwise.
...

Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere, the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes.

Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to criticism of his performance. His first move is always to withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat.

For an example of how Mr. Ashcroft shuts down public examination, consider the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former F.B.I. translator who says that the agency's language division is riddled with incompetence and corruption, and that the bureau missed critical terrorist warnings. In 2002 she gave closed-door Congressional testimony; Senator Charles Grassley described her as "very credible . . . because people within the F.B.I. have corroborated a lot of her story."

But the Justice Department has invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege" to prevent Ms. Edmonds from providing evidence. And last month the department retroactively classified two-year-old testimony by F.B.I. officials, which was presumably what Mr. Grassley referred to.

For an example of changing the subject, consider the origins of the Jose Padilla case. There was no publicity when Mr. Padilla was arrested in May 2002. But on June 6, 2002, Coleen Rowley gave devastating Congressional testimony about failures at the F.B.I. (which reports to Mr. Ashcroft) before 9/11. Four days later, Mr. Ashcroft held a dramatic press conference and announced that Mr. Padilla was involved in a terrifying plot. Instead of featuring Ms. Rowley, news magazine covers ended up featuring the "dirty bomber" who Mr. Ashcroft said was plotting to kill thousands with deadly radiation.

Since then Mr. Padilla has been held as an "enemy combatant" with no legal rights. But Newsweek reports that "administration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention — that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological `dirty bomb' — has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used in court."
...

But most important is the memo. Last week Mr. Ashcroft, apparently in contempt of Congress, refused to release a memo on torture his department prepared for the White House almost two years ago. Fortunately, his stonewalling didn't work: The Washington Post has acquired a copy of the memo and put it on its Web site.

Much of the memo is concerned with defining torture down: if the pain inflicted on a prisoner is less than the pain that accompanies "serious physical injury, such as organ failure," it's not torture. Anyway, the memo declares that the federal law against torture doesn't apply to interrogations of enemy combatants "pursuant to [the president's] commander-in-chief authority." In other words, the president is above the law.

The memo came out late Sunday. Mr. Ashcroft called a press conference yesterday — to announce an indictment against a man accused of plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio. The timing was, I'm sure, purely coincidental.

and here's more about the art piece:
Terror inquiry snares art exhibit
FBI seizes material intended for Mass MoCA display on genetically modified food; four artists subpoenaed

- rob 1:40 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Post-9/11 laws expand to more than terrorism

You mean when Aschroft said the Patriot Act would only be used to fight terrorism he was lying???


Federal and state prosecutors are applying stiff antiterrorism laws adopted after the 9/11 attacks to broad, run-of-the-mill probes of political corruption, financial crimes and immigration frauds.

If the government gets its way, even routine transactions of buying or selling American homes could soon come under the scrutiny of money-laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act. The Treasury Department, which already has caught up financial transactions in casinos, storefront check-cashing stores and auto dealers for scrutiny, wants to expand Patriot Act coverage to home purchases as well.

Since 9/11, critics say the greatest effect of new state and federal antiterrorism laws has been on crimes already covered by other laws.

- rob 1:27 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Onward Christian Torturer
An Ashcroft and Torture roundup

A Plunge From the Moral Heights

Come and sit with me for a moment. I am in a room, in a Middle Eastern country, and I am talking to a government official. He mentions the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S.-run prison outside Baghdad, and what this has done to America's image in his region. He smiles at what he says, for he is a man who appreciates irony. Of course, this same thing happens in his country, he says. Inwardly, I smile back, smug in my confidence that Abu Ghraib or no Abu Ghraib, America is a different sort of nation. It now seems I was a bit too smug.

The recent revelations that the Justice Department prepared memos parsing what is and what is not torture brings to mind regimes that, well, I would rather not bring to mind.

--

Small Comfort

"The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you," President Bush said brusquely when questioned last week about a Justice Department legal opinion authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.

We can now see the August 2002 legal opinion for ourselves, thanks to The Post, which posted the complete text on its Web site Monday. Reading the memo's legalistic explanation of why "the mere inflicting of pain or suffering on another" is not torture, you begin to understand why Attorney General John Ashcroft refused last week to release the opinion himself -- and why Bush's description of it was so misleading. The document, in its dry, lawyerly way, is as shocking as the Abu Ghraib photographs.

Contrary to Bush's account, the Justice Department memo wasn't an affirmation of laws that ban torture. Instead, it was a legal interpretation explaining how CIA interrogators could avoid liability under those laws, even if they used methods that might commonly be regarded as torture.

--

The memo in question is in pdf format here: Bad Counsel

- rob 1:25 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

While American Burned the Press Played the Fiddle

While watching Hardball (MSNBC) last night, a barely tolerable news show, but infinitely better then 'Scarborough Country' (a fantasy land with elves and unicorns and Iraqi's giving out flowers), I patiently waited for a discussion of the Ashcroft memo. A memo that sets limits on "acceptable torture" and which Ashcroft refused to show Congress (while giving the finger to the constitution). But not a peep (though I admit I gave up watching before the show was over).

The focus of the show, and almost all news as far as I can tell was on the "horse race" aspect of the upcoming election. Maybe a more interesting aspect would be what would be left of America's reputation and integrity by November, as Bush is hell bent on destroying them.

Something is very very wrong if more time is spent discussing why purple states are called purple states: "the states in play aren't red or blue, there purple, get it." And in case you didn't get it they gleefully educate us that red and blue makes purple. In fact to make it more digestible information they kindly tell us that if you take a red crayon and draw on a piece of paper and then take a blue crayon and draw over the red you'll get a color many scientists refer to as "grapeple"... umm... purple.

Wouldn't it be more useful to educate the viewer that the Geneva Convention isn't some bunch of Star Trek nerds in Switzerland, but as a ratified treaty, it is an American law?

- rob 1:05 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Out here in Oregon, we have recently found out that a former mayor of Portland, Secretary of Transportation under Carter, head of Nike Canada, and Governor of our fine state, was diddling the neighbor's daughter for a period of 3 years back in the late 70s. He was in his mid to late thirties. She was in her mid to late teens. After his "affair," as The Oregonian so graciously put it, he went on to become one of the most powerful men in the state and she went on to drug problems and mental suffering. He was worth, only just a few months ago, the state's accident insurer paying him 40,000 dollars a month for his "black book" and contacts.

Well, it's not news that powerful men often do terrible things.

What makes me sick is we're finding out that plenty of other powerful people knew his dark, little secret. Some knew for years. And nobody did anything about it. The current governor, who is also the former Attorney General and a former Supreme Court Judge, apparently may have found out about the child abuse as early as 1989. But certainly, says one person, he knew about the abuse in 1994 because that person told him about it then. Long before the current gov appointed Goldschmidt to the Board of Higher Education just this year. The current sheriff of Multnomah County, Bernie Guisto, was Goldschmidt's driver (as a state trooper) when he was gov. Good old Bernie knew, apparently, as early as 1989, and perhaps earlier.

Ok, so this seems off topic for this blog. Especially because Goldschmidt and the others are Democrats. So why am I sitting in the dark at nearly 11 pm writing this? Because it is case in point about how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody did anything about it because they knew what the fallout would be. They'd find themselves on the short-end of Gov. Goldschmidt and turns out, that's not too good for your career. Besides, everyone was happy, except the poor girl, to be on the Goldschmidt train. Because everyone who was on the train benefitted. Keep your mouth shut, and head down, and you'll be rewarded seems to be the mantra. Hitch your star to Goldschmidt and you'll go far.

Just like Halliburton. Just like Enron. And for that matter, just like George W. For those in power, it doesn't matter who you screw or how many, just as long as you're making yourself better off. For those coattailers, it doesn't matter what your boss is doing or what you're doing for your boss, so long as you're not one of the ones getting the shaft. Those Enron traders' comments are instructive--they were more than happy to make money by screwing California ratepayers. So come on all you self-righteous republicans, I want my country back like you talk about. Where's the morality? Where's the sense of ethics? Where is that shining city on the hill? Where are the thousand points of light? Where's the compassionate conservativism? Or is all of that rhetoric just that--so much crap.

Why is it only Henry Waxman, a dyed-in-the-wool, liberal democrat, who is squawking about Halliburton? Why is it only a former ambassador who is crying about the outing of his wife, a CIA operative? Why has the Enron investigation taken so long and produced so little? Why isn't Kenny Boy in jail? You republicans should be screaming bloody murder about government run-amok. You should be screaming about the lack of morality in corporate board rooms, just as you scream about the lack of morality in our bedrooms. You should be screaming about Bush's desire to impose his will on other people around the world in some kind of misguided Pax Americana. You should be screaming, you defenders of the second Amendment, about the power-grabbing executive who is troucing on the rest of Constitution and only paying lip service to the balance of power.

But no. Because it gets back to my post earlier and Rob's fantastic commentary--Republicans need the laws to save them from themselves. For all the preaching they do about the way the world is and should be in the abstract, they're more than willing to use their power to benefit themselves. And blame any fallout on the fact that they couldn't help themselves. Or that there was no law against it. Or whatever. So, just like those who knew about Goldschmidt crimes, there are all of the little people in the Bush administration who know about Bush's crimes. Who know about the instructions to commit torture. Who know about the instructions to out Valerie Plame. Who know about the political influence used to get Halliburton a no-bid, no-cap, government contract. And yet, who remain mum because they benefit because their star is hitched to Bush.

Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.

- B 1:41 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Apologies to CCN, this is a lot more than just a little snippet on an article, its pretty much the whole thing:

Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several former presidential diplomatic and military officials have signed a statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying that it has harmed national security, one of the document's signers said Sunday.

Many of the signers were appointed by Republican administrations.

Phyllis Oakley, the deputy State Department spokeswoman during former President Ronald Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton, said the statement was "prompted by a growing concern, deeply held, about the future of the country's national security."

The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she said, although it does not endorse any candidate.

"We are on the wrong track, and we need a fundamental change," said Oakley.

20 former ambassadors among signers

The statement, which will be released Wednesday, was signed by 20 former U.S. ambassadors, including William Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel by former President George Bush in 1991.

Military commanders who signed the document include retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command over-seeing the Middle East in 1991; and retired Admiral William Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1985-89.

The signers called themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

Oakley said the group is representative of very senior, former government officials who "have spent their lives working to erect the stature and posture of the U.S. as a leader in the world ... and we simply see that edifice crumbling."

- rob 2:39 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

As I noted below, there is an excellent Top Ten Conservative Idiots list up today.

Here's some more highlights:

2. The Ronathon
So what's it to be? How are we going to immortalize Ronnie, and what's the most inappropriate way of doing it? Yes, the Ronathon was in full effect last week as right-wingers competed to demonstrate how far they could get their noses up Dutch's backside. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wants to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif) wants Reagan on the $20, and Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) prefers to replace John F. Kennedy on the 50-cent piece. Meanwhile Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has suggested renaming the Pentagon to "the Ronald Reagan National Defense Building." (Seriously.) Some in Congress are even trying to get the 25-year waiting period removed so they can place a memorial on the National Mall. But why stop at the National Mall? Grover Norquist and the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project want to put a monument to the Gipper in every county in the United States (there's more than 3000 of them). I hope they're paying for it. And let's not forget putting Ronnie's head on Mount Rushmore, of course, which is a very popular suggestion. Tell you what, why don't we rename the Statue of Liberty after him - or better still, replace Lady Liberty's head with Ronald's, complete with cowboy hat? Or we could carefully set massive forest fires in the west which when viewed from space form a majestic flaming image of his smiling face. We could call it the Ronald Reagan Tree Is A Tree Clean Air Monument. Because you know, I bet that's what Ronald Reagan would have wanted.

3. The Bush Administration
John Ashcroft was in hot water last week when he potentially placed himself in contempt of Congress by refusing to release a January 2002 memo which says that George W. Bush is above the law and can torture whomever he damn well pleases. "I believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president have the opportunity to get information from the attorney general that is confidential," said Ashcroft. But he didn't invoke executive privilege, so he was basically saying, "oh, and by the way, I'm above the law too." The memo itself was 56 pages long, and according to Reuters said that George W. Bush had "'complete authority over the conduct of war,' overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture." That's right folks - Our Great Leader doesn't need to abide by such petty out-dated concepts as "the law" because he's defending our freedoms. Never mind the fact that authorizing torture places George W. Bush in the same league as Augusto Pinochet. Because don't forget - even though we're doing the same things the evil-doers are doing, we know that it's wrong, and that makes us better than them. Um, or something. And anyway, I bet it's what Ronald Reagan would have wanted.

- rob 2:36 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

War Criminals in Our White House (Americans own it you know, bush doesn't)

Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'

- rob 2:31 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Nadar: Stooge of oil companies, defense contractors, and homophobes (the GOP)

Daily Kos || Nader Arizona ballot problems

42 Democratic volunteers in Phoenix are currently checking Nader's Arizona petition signatures. Nader needs a 32 percent bad signature rate to be knocked off the ballot, and so far, after 2,000 checked, the rate is 37 percent.

Of those 2,000 signatures, 5 percent have been Democrats, 3 percent "other" or independent, and 92 percent Republican. If this number is verified, and if it holds up over the full 22,000 petition signatures, it will be a clear indication from where Nader's "support" comes.

- rob 2:28 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Powell: Terrorism Report a 'Big Mistake'

Actually Powell, the Bush pResidency is a "big mistake," the Terrorism Report was a piece of Propoganda, a bald faced lie.

WASHINGTON - A State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline last year in terrorism worldwide was a "big mistake," Secretary of State Colin Powell said. "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Powell said Sunday that he was working with the CIA, which helped to compile the data, to determine why the errors got into the report. He said he planned a meeting on the issue Monday and that the intelligence agency was working through the weekend in preparation.

Well if Powell isn't a happy camper I know it was just a big mistake. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, they've never lied to us before.

The good news was trumpeted everywhere, the official correction was announced on a Friday. And not just any Friday, but on the grand finale of the week long 24/7 real news blackout that was Reagan's funeral.

There are lies, damn lies, and then their is anything put out by the Bush Administration.

- rob 2:25 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Under Bush Old Soldiers Do Die

Reserve, Guard forces take more older soldiers to Iraq

One of the first casualties this month in Iraq was New Jersey National Guardsman Frank Carvill, who was 51 when he died in an attack on his convoy in Baghdad.

The oven-strength heat of Iraq apparently felled Louisiana National Guardsman Floyd Knighten, who collapsed last August as he traveled in a convoy. He was 54.

Illinois National Guardsman William Chaney succumbed May 18 to complications following surgery for an internal infection 10 days after he took ill in Iraq. He was 59.

In Iraq - contrary to the famous contention of World War II Gen. Douglas MacArthur - old soldiers do die.

Bush is waiting until stealing the election before he announces the draft... it seems the old guys just give out too quickly:

They represent a tiny fraction of the 827 American war fatalities overall. By far, it is the young who are doing most of the dying. For instance, those 21 and younger account for about 1 in 3 combat deaths. In contrast, just 7 percent of the dead are 40 or older.

But senior soldiers were significantly more likely to die of medical causes than the rest of the U.S. force. Sixty percent of the soldiers over 50 who died did so due to either heart attacks, brain aneurysms or other ailments. In contrast, just 4 percent of all the war dead have perished for medical reasons.

That surprised John Allen Williams, a military sociology expert at Loyola College of Chicago.

"It may be the older you are the more susceptible you are to stresses," Williams said.

After demonstrating such amazing intuitive capabilities Bush gives John Williams the Surgeon General post.

- rob 2:16 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Surprise Surprise Surprise.

Help for Halliburton alleged in Iraq oil plan

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said yesterday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president.

- rob 1:56 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Now and then, its fun to read something REALLY scary:

Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon?

- rob 1:33 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush Shows His Diplomatic Skills At The G8 Summit



From today's excellent: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots, No. 159 - Democratic Underground

UPDATE: Bush is going to use these amazing diplomatic skills to become (hold on to your cowboy hats): A Peace President?

Indeed, the President is privately telling aides that after leading the nation to war in his first term, he wants to spend his next four years being "a peace President." Officials in the Administration contend he has more credibility as a diplomat now that he has shown a willingness to use force to back his principles. "The reason diplomacy will be effective in a second term is because of the use of the military," says a senior Administration official. Doubters suspect the shift is aimed at coaxing other nations to help rescue his failing Iraq policy — and to present a less warlike face to voters. Bush campaign advisers concede as much. "It may help overseas, yes," says a top Bush campaign adviser, "but if nothing else, it gives us ammunition to push back against Kerry."

Yet despite the President's efforts, the diplomatic tensions won't simply disappear. When Bush was asked if he would offer Chirac a coveted invitation to his Texas ranch, the President seemed hesitant. "If he wants to come and see some cows, he's welcome to come out there," he told the French magazine Paris Match. Chirac, a former agriculture minister, was just as cool in an NBC interview. "I myself am from a region," he noted, "where we raise cows — probably the most beautiful and best in the world."

Jeez. "A coveted invitation to his Texas ranch," because a "coveted invitation to your average Motel 8" is really only for the biggest of the big.

- rob 1:17 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

For those of you keeping track, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the guy who is in charge of the military in Iraq has admitted to approving tough interrogation tactics at Abu Ghraib prison.

Thus, the claim by an anonymous commentator a few weeks ago that those of us at TCS were just a bunch of idiots and that there were "at least 30" levels in the chain of command between those who were responsible for the actions and the president begins to look a little silly.

Sanchez reports to Rumsfeld. So we're beginning to get pretty close to the Chimp. With only one layer protecting the president the question becomes: When will that layer be peeled back to reveal that the Chimperor has no clothes?

- B 12:37 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

What does it take for people to realize that Limbaugh really is, to quote Franken, a big, fat idiot? Or more to the point, just a hypocrite. It's not enough that he's already been married three times. He's now getting a third divorce. Nice Rush. Really nice. 10 years. What is that? Some kind of personal record? People like Rush are always prattling on about personal responsibility and upholding promises that have been made. Let's see, were his vows not particular about marriage being, preferably, a permanent thing? Mine sure were.

I'm not saying that he should stay married. God forbid I demand that people have to stay in loveless relationship. But, aren't those of his ilk always blaming liberals for the decline of civilization as we know it? E.g. The actions of the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, were generally blamed on his liberal, Marin County upbringing and the fact that his divorced parents didn't spend enough time with him, allowing him, in a culture of boundless freedom, to "experiment" with radical Islam. In the marriage context, liberals get blamed for introducing no-fault divorce and for "destroying" the institution of marriage for suggesting that two people who love each other should be able to make a state-approved commitment to one another regardless of gender. Marriage, the basic building block of society and underpinning of order, goodness and light, is under attack, I'm told. I'm told that the attack comes from the left. But I really think that it comes from people who get married and divorced three times before they're 53.

Once again, Rush proves that he is just like the rest of us. Maybe this little descent into the bowels of mediocrity will finally open the eyes of his slavering, kool-aid drinking followers. If the drug problem didn't open their eyes----

Maybe I'm all wet. Maybe Rush's marriage wasn't as "serious" a commitment as others. Maybe it was marriage-lite. Maybe when you get a sitting Supreme Court Justice to marry you, they kind of shorten things up a bit. Cut corners due to the busy schedule he has. Leave out the important bits. They just get to the "man and wife" part and call it a day. Usually, the person who does the marrying performs a little premarital counseling with the happy couple prior to the nuptials. I suppose that the premarital counseling sessions with Clarence were a little bit different than the ones my wife and I had with our priest. I can only imagine:

Rush: What if suspect that my wife has been cheating on me? What do I do?
Clarence: Ask her a simple question like 'Who put pubic hair on my Coke?'

Rush: What if I need a divorce and liberals are all up in arms about my hypocrisy?
Clarence: I suggest that you attack them saying "You're just performing a high-tech lynching of an uppity fat man."

or something like that....

- B 12:35 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Subscribe to the TCS Feed

Having trouble with some of the poor English on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:

Search TCS

Archive

Archive Index Page

What is this?

This is a "team" blog.  We are a bunch of Americans, whose rising distress in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.  As Bush said, he's a "uniter."  Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.

This Century Sucks Store

Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.  

We have a little Store you can visit.  

Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come see what we have.

 

We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.

Search Now:

Sites we often like:

Tin Foil Caps

The Free Speech Zone

The office of the independent blogger

Buzzflash

Tom The Dancing Bug

VerifiedVoting.org

Get Your War On

This Modern World

Eschaton / Atrios

Daily Kos

Contribute to America's Future

It is now more important then ever.

Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee

Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Some More Site Mottos

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt



"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response."
 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison



"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

More Sites we often like:

more coming...

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.