A right-wing extremist by the name of William Bennett made one of the most hateful comments yesterday I have ever heard any current or former public official say -- and when I say hateful, I mean worse than any of Pat Roberts' assassination requests or his Supreme Court vacancy visions of grandeur():
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to this when asked by reporters ():
"The president believes the comments were not appropriate."
Well good. But we did hold our breath for a second on that one. Know that William Bennett was the Education Secretary under Ronald Reagan, and is currently a , a conservative think tank.
Bennett is also the brilliant mind that :
"The elementary school must assume as its sublime and most solemn responsibility the task of teaching every child in it to read. Any school that does not accomplish this has failed."
What a bright one! from Bush back in 2001:
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
Well they had me at hello. These conservatives are some deep thinkers!
Just one day after General George Casey received some verbal heat from almost every member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the reality in Iraq could not look more bleak. by Sunni insurgents in the city of Hilla, amid fears that the civil war between two of the three sects of Iraq's political establishment is intensifying. In the Northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, the by gunmen. Also, the death toll from the in Balad rose to 98, with 199 wounded. The U.S. death toll has spiked in recent days even after the killing of Al Qaeda's number two man in Iraq. The number of U.S. soldiers killed now .
When asked by the Senate panel to elaborate on an exit strategy, , "I can tell you, Congressman, it's all going to be conditions-based."
If it's based on conditions then our soldiers could be there for the next nine years -- which was how long . "Fighting insurgencies is a long-term proposition, and there's noreason that we should believe that the insurgency in Iraq will take anyless time to deal with."
That prompts most Americans to wonder why we weren't told this nine-year reality before we made the choice to go to war?
have a list of the "the 13 most corrupt members of Congress." Well, what do you know? Roy Blunt, the person taking DeLay's spot as House Majority Leader, is #13 on the list:
Despite Rep. DeLay’s innumerable ethics problems, the House leadershipremains blind to the ethics issue, naming Rep. Blunt as Leader despitehis trail of ethics violations. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethicsin Washington (CREW) this week released a 88-page report entitledBeyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress, documenting theunethical and often illegal activities of the most tainted Members ofCongress. Rep. Blunt was included in the report which, for the firsttime compiles and analyzes ethics violations in light of federal lawsand ethics rules.
Rep. Blunt’s ethics issues stem from his abuse of his position for thebenefit of his family, including providing legislative assistance tohis wife and son and using his clout to solicit contributions foranother son’s campaign. Details of Rep. Blunt’s egregious activitiescan be found at www.beyonddelay.org.
“Rep. Blunt’s appointment is a case of ‘new boss, same as the oldboss.’ While Rep. Blunt may be new to the job, he has long followedRep. DeLay’s pattern of ignoring campaign finance laws and ethicsrules,†Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today. “Rep.Blunt’s favors for Phillip Morris and United Parcel Service, at a timewhen both companies were clients of his family members, and hisfunneling of campaign contributions to his son Matt’s campaign forGovernor begs the question ‘with such an ethically-challenged record,is Rep. Blunt an appropriate choice for House Majority Leader’?â€
Rep. Blunt also contributed the largest individual donation, $20,000, to Rep. DeLay’s Legal Defense Fund.
Additionally, according to the Associated Press, Rep. Roy Blunt’sPolitical Action Committee (PAC), Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, has paidroughly $88,000 in fees since 2003 to J.W. Ellis Co., a consulting firmrun by Jim Ellis. Mr. Ellis, a long time ally of Rep. DeLay, has beenindicted along with Rep. DeLay for conspiracy to violate Texas campaignfinance laws. It is unclear what services Mr. Ellis performed for Rep.Blunt, who listed Mr. Ellis as a “consultant.â€
You can to get a complete laundry list of the interesting scandals Blunt has been involved in. So it's not out "with the old, in with the new" when it comes to DeLay's departure. It's the same dried up old corruption the as the "power vacuum."
The U.S. already has a strategic petroleum reserve, which is only tapped during major energy emergencies. What if we had the same thing for gas in an effort to relieve some of the strain on consumers? Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are pushing the idea ():
The idea appears to be gaining some traction among lawmakers who areunder pressure from constituents to do something about high gasolineprices. But the oil industry and some other lawmakers are intent ondefeating the measure, saying it would interfere with the market anddiscourage needed imports.
Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard J. Durbin(D-Ill.) said at a news conference that their legislation also callsfor emergency reserves of jet fuel. Several Gulf Coast refineriesremain shut down because of damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita,creating tight supplies and higher prices for gasoline, jet fuel andother products.
"With the energy markets stretchedto the max, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina wreaking havoc with our Gulfrefiners, and greedy oil companies jacking up prices at the pump, weneed to create rainy day reserves for gasoline and jet fuel," Schumersaid.
The hurricanes' impact on Gulf Coastrefineries has called attention to a tight market for gasoline and jetfuel -- the result of increasing demand and refineries that have notkept pace. The market conditions are exacerbated by oil companies thathave reduced gasoline inventories in recent years, which can lead tobigger price spikes during disruptions.
Now we get to see which members of the GOP are the closest to the energy industry. Those who are will likely put the interests of Bush-friendly oil friends over those of American families whose wallets are being affected each day by price hikes. Such a reserve, if approved, would put pressure on the market to conform to reasonable prices, preventing gas companies from gouging American taxpayers, as they have been throughout the summer all over America.
, however, would rather not give consumers a break by implementing this idea:
"If non-politicians are going to decide what projects to fund, why dowe need Chuck Schumer? We already have a system in whichnon-politicians decide what projects to fund. It's called 'the market.'"
Which market is he talking about? The crony one that favors GOP donors like Exxon Mobile? Or a fair market that prevents rich corporations from abusing the law? Only one of the two styles of economic theory are being implemented, and it is not the latter. I am a heart-and-soul capitalist. But I believe in capitalism that is both free and fair, not lassiez-faire and crony.
Yesterday was the classic case of Bush saying one thing while his military generals concluded the exact opposite. It was also one of the most revealing moments regarding the truth behind how the occupation in Iraq is going. General George Casey went in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and admitted that the effort to train Iraqi security forces -- which if successful would allow U.S. forces to slowly withdraw -- is heading in exactly the opposite direction of what was planned. Three months ago only three Iraqi battalions were armed, trained and ready for duty. That number is now down to one battalon, .
But just hours earlier during an afternoon press conference, Bush said the exact opposite:
"Members of Congress will get the latest information about our strategy. And I want to thank them for taking time out of their schedules to listento these two -- to these two Generals. They will hear about the strategyand the progress in increasing the size and capability of the Iraqisecurity forces. At this moment, more than a dozen Iraqi battalions havecompleted training and are conducting anti-terrorist operations in Ramadiand Fallujah."
Well it looks like someone, either Casey or Bush, was not telling the truth. Bush jumped right to the conclusion that the new constitution as it is written will change Iraq for the better:
"Next month the Iraqis will vote on a democratic constitution. If thatconstitution is approved, they will return to polls later this year toelect a fully constitutional government. The terrorists will fail."
Again, Casey said the exact opposite. He worried that the upcoming constitutional vote actually might not help the security situation at all. :
"As we've looked at this, we've looked for the constitution to be a national compact. The perception now is that it's not."
Senator McCain shot back ():
"You're taking a very big gamble here...I don't see the indicators yet that we are ready toplan or begin troop withdrawals, given the overall security situation."
But according to Casey, (second revelation) the things were going well in Iraq. Oh really? ():
"I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard mesay that things are going very well in Iraq. This is a hard struggle."
I did a word search and found that Casey indeed never uttered those words. But the President, Cheney and Rumsfeld have. If you do a search in just the News section of Google on the phrase, "We're making progress in Iraq," it brings up . The message that things have been going well in Iraq from day one is the spin that has kept the American people on-board with this war. Now as military generals like Casey admit the truth, you can expect the public to abandon ship in their support for this unilateral war. Well, come to think of it, most already have.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from jail after finally agreeing to testify before a grand jury about the Valerie Plame case. Her agreement with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald came after her source, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, agreed to waive the confidentiality agreement ():
"It's good to be free. I wentto jail to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist mustrespect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source.. . . I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily andpersonally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding ourconversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter."
Her appearance in court should worry Scooter Libby and Karl Rove who, according to many analysts, are at the center of the investigation over a CIA agent whose identity was intentionally outed. Here were the course of events that led up to Judith Miller's release, as described in a :
The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intensenegotiations among her; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer,Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald.
The talks began with atelephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Millerspoke with Mr. Libby by telephone this month as their lawyers listened,according to people who have been briefed on the case. It was then thatMr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntarywaiver.
The discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libbyand Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiverto another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago,according to those briefed on the case.
Other people involvedin the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver hadbeen freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from Mr.Libby directly.
Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seekfurther clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August,after she had been in jail for more than a month. Mr. Libby wrote toMs. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyersunderstood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary.
On Sept. 16, Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald saying his conversationswith Mr. Abrams last year were meant to assure Ms. Miller that a broadwaiver that Mr. Libby signed in late 2003 was not coerced and appliedspecifically to Ms. Miller.
On Thursday, Mr. Abrams wrote to Mr. Tate disputing parts of Mr.Tate's account. His letter said although Mr. Tate had said the waiverwas voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a conditionof employment was inherently coercive.
Mr. Tate said in aninterview on Thursday, "Her lawyers were provided with a waiver that wesaid was voluntary more than a year ago." Mr. Abrams would not discussthe question in a brief telephone conversation on Thursday.
Aspart of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versionsof notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.
In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times didnot identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. BillKeller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms.Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogationso that it would not implicate other sources of hers."
Ms. Miller's lawyers had sought such an assurance as a condition of her testimony.
Mr. Keller said Mr. Fitzgerald cleared the way to an agreement byassuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard aconversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstructionof justice.
We will probably get an announcement by mid-October from the grand jury, since Fitzgerald is basically done with the investigation. I just wonder whether Bush would have the guts to pardon Rove or Libby if they get charged. Wouldn't that be something?
As progressives, lets expect a little bit more out of Pat Leahy and the rest of the Democrats next time Bush nominates a Supreme Court Justice. Senate Democrats should have rewarded Roberts' filibustering of the Judiciary Committee hearings with a filibuster of their own. With the court's pendulum and existing civil rights laws hanging in the balance, a little more Democratic assertiveness in the future would be nice, to put it nicely.
You know something I am sick of? I am sick of turning on the television or reading in the newspaper about some family in the Gulf Coast whose kids are starving and have not showered in weeks because of FEMA's inability to get food and supplies down there a full month after the fact. Both parties in Congress are pleading with the Administration to stop ordering between four and five senators -- -- to block a Medicare relief bill that will instantly provide a layer of protection for families in that area.
When it comes to lives on the line, we need to be as nonpartisan as possible. I have listened to President Bush, who validly claims that the families in need are protected by a previous broad $800 million aid package that was passed almost one month ago. But very respectfully, the flaw in that bill is that it is simply not enough, and not all of it is targeted for Medicaid.
Unlike some far-left liberals, I will never claim that President Bush does not care about the victims down there. Over the last week, in my view, his involvement in coordinating the government's response has improved.
At the same time, victims down there need access to Medicaid coverage. Even Trent Lott agrees ():
"I'm prepared to be hard-nosed, too, at some point. At some point, youhave to tell them: 'Okay, ante up and kick in or get out of the game.' But I'm notlooking for a fight. I'm looking for help, for people that aredesperate."
The Congress is attempting to pass a $8 billion bill to keep more innocent victims from losing their lives because of a lack of basic help, such as medicine and food. If they can't get that bill through, it will be Bush's fault yet again.
Last night's episode of the Daily Show illustrated how childish Sean Hannity can be. Why childish, you ask? In the segment 'Great Moments in Punditry', two kids read the script of a heated exchange between Hannity and a progressive talk show host. Watch for yourself ():
The kid on the right has an acting career ahead of him!
Recent Comments