The "I don't recall" administration

"I don't recall," or something close to it, said 122 times by ex-Justice Department Deputy Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson on Thursday.

More on this later today - I've got lots to blog about this weekend!

Pelosi to W: cool your heels

I got a pretty big kick out of this one the other day. It's Nancy Pelosi telling President Bush to "take a breath," which was her nice way of saying "calm the !@#$%#!! down, Mr. President."

As liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller so succinctly put it yesterday, it was as if Pelosi was talking to one of her many grandchildren...

"Mr. President, sit down! Now who wants a juice box?"

(I'm still laughing, but I can't deliver it 1/8 as funny as it was on her show - which is on Sirius 146 Talk Left from 6-9 every weeknight, by the way)

Miller is great, and her show is funny, witty, entertaining and informing.

Maybe Bush needs to breathe deep, like Gore did during the 2000 presidential debates. Yea, that sounds about right - Bush needs to be more like Gore.

Joe Lieberman is the new Zell Miller

I know even less than Joe Lieberman about the situation in Baghdad, but I'll confidently say this - I trust a reporter, in this case CNN's Michael Ware, a whole lot more than I do a Republican sycophant in Washington.

From what I'm reading, violence in Baghdad might be down slightly since the U.S. surge began, but violence is up all over the country.

Well, we've heard from McCain that things are better in Iraq, and we've heard from Joe Lieberman. Who's next? Was Rudy busy yesterday? What about Newt Gingrich?

I've got a good idea - why not get former Senator Bill Frist on the phone - he's masterful at diagnosing a situation with just a few minutes of video.

Lieberman and McCain - perfect together. Perfectly ignorant and ideologically programmed to believe that someday we'll be victors in Iraq.

Pathetic and sad - two men with a lot of good qualities, politically ruined (as they should be) because of their myopic views on this misbegotten war.

Joe Lieberman really is the new Zell Miller - loved by Repubes, despised by Democrats the world over. Joe's simply an ass with a trunk.

Brit soldiers remain in Iran - uh-oh

This is a total disgrace - Iranians parading British soldiers before the cameras. The video is tough to look at for many reasons, but what's really the story here is that a viewer of this doesn't see - is a gun just off camera? Did Iranians threaten to kill the other hostages if this soldier didn't go before the cameras?

This situation is quite serious and bears watching.

It's being widely reported in Russia that the U.S. already has a date that the war with Iran will start - April 6. I don't know that I'm putting too much stock in that, but the fact that it cannot and is not dismissed out of hand by many is a sure indication of how far the Bush administration's credibility has suffered with many (most?) Americans.

I'll say this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, we'd probably already be at war with Iran by now. You think that's a stretch? Take a quick read on a few snippets of Bush speeches from this year alone about Iran...

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," said Bush on January 10 during a televised address about the troop surge. He was referring to Iran, which, he reasoned, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

(Later his comment was clarified - he was referring to some advanced IED devices - improvised explosive devices - given to some anti-American death squads.)

Bush then put a shot across Iran's bow:
"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In an interview for NPR on January 29, Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric a bit higher, saying, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly ... It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

In his January address, Dubya also used the tried-and-true tactic for leading us to war - playing the nuclear weapon card. When asked to respond to the possibility of Iran's getting a nuclear weapon, Bush responded, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East."

During a Valentine's Day press conference, the president confidently declared that there are weapons in Iraq that are linked back to the Iranian government. Just days before this press conference, some military commanders in Iraq stated privately that some elements of the Iranian military - specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - were supplying IED devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that government officials high in the Iranian government knew about it. Other U.S. officials, including some in the House and Senate, expressed skepticism about the reliability of the evidence and the related intelligence. Does this sound familiar?!? However, none of this stopped Bush from plowing ahead:

"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."

(Skepticism be damned)

What needs to be explored, he continued at the press conference, is exactly how high in the Iranian government was the go-ahead given leading to the IEDs delivery to the Shia militias in Iraq.

But, that's inconsequential, eh confidently asserted. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."

I can just about guarantee you that we'd be at war if it weren't for a Democratic Congress. The whole script of "preventing [insert enemy of the United States Here] from obtaining a nuclear weapon" is the Dubya and Karl Rovian script for war.

And Bush might yet find a way to get us into a war with Iran. If it happens, I fearlessly predict that there will be a draft. Otherwise, I have no idea how our military would get the bodies to have a third war.

We watch, and wait. I hope those British troops are home safe and sound, very soon.

Some information for this post is from AlterNet. Click Here for the whole story, which is a good read.

Snoop Dogs O'Reilly

Warning: This video isn't for work or around the kids, or for the easily offended, for that matter. Proceed accordingly.

I'm not a big fan of Snoop Dog, but this is a pretty good piece of footage that you won't hear on Extra!, Entertainment Tonight or even Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

In this clip, Snoop takes aim at Billy's head, and connects.

Okay, I'll admit, it's amateurish and childish, no doubt, but it's nice that the Internet is able to bring us coverage of Snoops metaphorical blows to O'Reilly that we other wise wouldn't hear.

And that's precisely why the government wants to end Net neutrality, and why everyone should be writing their representatives in Congress to make sure that the Net maintains neutrality. It's the last frontier we have left, and that's why the government wants to take it away from us. Sensible regulations, yes, but I'm sure sooner or later, a Repube administration will take away the Net's neutrality, but I digress.

Anyway, does this mean that we can expect another Billy boycott? France must be awfully happy.

Are there going to be Snoop CD smashing contests now, vis a vis The Dixie Chicks?

You'd better watch yourself, Dixie Dog - the radical religious right and Bill O'Reilly's army of one are going to come after you.

Apple launches iRack

I love MadTV, and this one's pretty good. I'm not quite awake yet, so it took a second for this one to sink in.

Of course, I love the pun, but I also love the imitation of Steve Jobs, which I think is pretty good. Jobs is an unqualified genius, but his product launches were just begging to be spoofed.

This video made my whole day - I'm still laughing after watching it a second time with Vandra.

CNN Obama piece a dog's breakfast

Wolf Blitzer and Bill Schneider are two of the very few left at CNN who I can stomach, but this piece is very misleading and selective.

First of all, as Media Matters has reported, this report leaves out that Obama acknowledged in the introduction of his book, Dreams of My Father, "that [Obama] created composite characters, presented dialogue that 'is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me,' and changed the names of most of the 'characters ... for the sake of their privacy.'"

This one minute drive-by shooting of Obama by Schneider, another one of the few CNN reporters I respect, sounds more like a Fox News strategy session, or for that matter, a RNC strategy video (Wait - those two are the same thing. Never mind.)

A few of my thoughts...

First off, I'm sick to death of hearing about the anti-Hillary Clinton Apple Computer ad. To me, this non-story story was all over the news for three or four days. Then, a week later, it was revealed that the ad had been created by an employee of a firm the Obama campaign hired to do some work. Immediately upon his being "outed," the guy was fired, a fact that Schneider neglects to mention in the disingenuous report above.

Secondly, as Media Matters so adeptly points out, Schneider takes the title right from The Politico, which seems sort of lame. There are no true ideas left in journalism, Bill, but you can't come up with your own title?

Just a quick thought about The Politico and The Drudge Report - it would be nice if the mainstream media did a little reporting of its own for once, instead of taking the word of GOP shill Matt Drudge, a journalistic hack who has admitted that a. "He's not a real journalist" and b. Never even attended college, from what I can tell. Not that college is a pre-requisite for being intelligent, but it always helps.

It's pretty funny how quickly the "news" networks will pick up just about anything on Drudge and report it as fact. The most shining example of this is the recent announcement by John and Elizabeth Edwards that her cancer has returned. A few hours before the announcement was made that Edwards would stay in the campaign, The Politico ran a one-source story that Edwards was withdrawing from the race. Of course, then Drudge ran with it, as did CNN, Thom Hartman on his radio show, etc. So, these two very popular Websites have a lot of sway over the mainstream media, and they shouldn't.

The only mistake in the Bill Schneider piece at the top of this page is that he's even reporting stuff like this in the first place. Even at this early stage of the campaign, this is broadcast filler and little else.

A great Rush & Bush apologist

I get a lot of my YouTube videos from a guy who calls himself ThePatriotsMaxim, and every so often, he awards a video a "Maxxi." This one is well deserving - take a listen as some guy who posts to YouTube says that Bush and Rush "Are fun loving guys."

Yea, sure.

Update: Swiftboat benefactor's ambassadorial nomination 86'd

I guarantee this bit of news gets lost in the news shuffle, considering all that is taking place on Capitol Hill these days.

I previously blogged about Sam Faux (I mean, "Fox" - sorry - it's a habit), a Swiftboat Veterans for Truth benefactor, who had to go before Congress and explain himself when he was nominated by the Bush Administration to be U.S. ambassador to Belgium.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president and target of Fox and the Swifties, didn't miss his opportunity last month to call out Fox for his involvement with the SBVT. Kerry made the most of it.

Yesterday, the Bush Administration withdrew Fox's name from consideration for the ambassadorship. Good. Finally, the Bush teams gets one right. He never should have been nominated in the first place.

"His nomination would not have passed today if the vote had been called up," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, as reported by AP.

During Fox's hearing last month, Kerry raked Fox over the coals about his $50,000 donation to the SBVT, saying the group was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Kerry was after an apology, but didn't get one. No matter.

"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said Wednesday, according to an AP story. "He chose not to. The White House made the right decision to withdraw the nomination. I hope this signals a new day in political discourse."

Keep dreamin', Senator. It's a victory for Kerry, albeit a very, very small one when compared to the damage Fox and his minions did in 2004.

Justice delayed is justice denied, but at least Kerry got his day with Fox by outing him as the partisan hate monger he really is.

Since I always hear Bill O'Lielly whining and complaining about the likes of George Soros and the money he donates to Democrats, I wonder if BOR has anything to say about Sam Fox? I already know the answer.

Saying goodbye to Gonzo in song

This one's pretty good - it's a video send-off of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to "Bye, Bye Love."

Seems pretty fitting. I'd give it three out of five stars. It lulls a bit in the middle, but all in all, a quality production.

Previewing Karl Rove's future career

But, I'm warning you, this ain't pretty. Karl Rove is like the sun - he's burned many people, he's not likely to go away for a long time, and, like the sun, if you look directly at this video, you'll regret it. You've been warned.

Well, we now know Karl Rove's next career once this administration is over. Maybe Rove could be a rapper - he's spawned more hate than even the worst rap artist could ever hope to, so he at least has the ideological foundation.

All kidding aside though, I thought this was kind of funny. He just looks like a buffoon and a fool trying to be funny, but people are making too big of a deal about this. But, it's kind of disturbing to look at in a funny kind of way.

What I did find truly annoying from last night's Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner were comments by President Bush when referring to the firing of U.S. attorneys:



"You know you've botched it when people sympathize with lawyers."

I realize that these events are supposed to be humorous, but really? I love it that the media consistently gives Bush a pass on his negative comments about lawyers.

I not-so-fondly remember 2004, when Bush mocked John Kerry and John Edwards for their proposals to reform medical malpractice. John Edwards' belly button lint knows more about medical malpractice than George W. Bush could learn in a lifetime, yet President Bush successfully mocked the Kerry/Edwards proposal, with his characteristic sneer:

"Their solution is to put a trial lawyer in charge."

It's amazing how much President Bush holds lawyers in contempt, yet he would never have been appointed president by the Supreme Court in the fall of 2000 were it not for any army of lawyers and a few of his daddy's buddies on the Supreme Court.

But, this is just another example of Bush thinking we're all morons and that we don't remember this stuff.

Wrong again, Mr. President.

A showdown over Iraq looming large

Lots more to get to later today. The Senate has passed a bill calling for the almost immediate withdraw of our troops from Iraq, beginning in about four months. I'll have lots more to say about this tonight, but this is precisely what Democrats were sent to Congress last November to do - clean up the corruption that has so infested our federal government, and to end this misbegotten war.

I wonder if Bush will get on TV today to hammer home his already trite talking point - that the Democrats are engaging in "political theater" by passing bills in both Houses of Congress mandating that the troops be brought home. What an asinine thing for Bush to say, especially coming from a president who shamelessly uses theater to propagate his myopic views as to why the War in Iraq was/is so necessary.

This is how President Bush announced earlier this week that he would veto legislation that had any sort of deadline for American forces to withdraw from Iraq. Nah, no theater there. Look at who's standing in the background - Members of various veterans groups and their families.

How dare the Democrats participate in political theater!

President Bush would never stoop to such levels for political gain. He's beyond rank partisan politics and cheap photo opportunities. I repeat, he'd never do that.

Nope, never.

Ever.

Will McCain walk unprotected down a Baghdad street? I hope he's not that dumb

It's funny how you can tell how a war is going from thousands of miles away. This is from a few days ago, but it's Judas John McCain, opining that the War in Iraq is going just great. This arrogant ass tried to dress down Wolf Blitzer, telling him he should "get up to speed."

Sure, John. Why don't you get a clue. I triple-dog-dare McCain to go anywhere, ANYWHERE in Baghdad and walk down the street and see what happens.

And that's precisely what CNN's Michael Ware offered to McCain - to take a walk with him in this area "where you can walk down the street without any protection." Ware has been in Iraq for four years, reporting on the war and, let's be frank, putting himself in harm's way.

The next time that McCain wants to push b.s. like this on the American people, he should try GOP News, where the facts never get in the way of a good 'ole Republican campaign stop over its airwaves. Can you imagine McCain saying this to Sean Hannity? He would have given McCain a five-minute tongue bath while decrying how the "liberal press" is ignoring all of the good news coming out of our failed neocon state.

Psst - Hey Senator - you are an American hero for being a POW during the Vietnam War. That is not and never will be in dispute. (No Swiftboating from the left, or at least not from me, ever, about your service to your country.)

BUT, that doesn't make you an expert on the current War in Iraq. If anything, it makes you more dangerous, because you think you know a whole helluva lot more than you really do.

Brits in Iran: it's getting tense

The British hostages situation in Iran is starting to turn into a pretty tense situation. As England's closest ally, we should be doing all we can to resolve this situation.

Wait, we don't talk to Iran - we never negotiation with terrorists. Let's just pretend the Iran/Contra Scandal never happened. *Cough Cough*

It's a disgrace that the Iranians put British soldiers on television yesterday. I'm not saying war with Iran should be completely ruled out, but I'm hoping it can be avoided. This reminds me of the American hostages - 52 Americans, held 444 days, from '79-'81.

Anyway, I'll offer this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, I firmly believe that this would have been the incident that would have started a war with Iran.

Considering this administration's actions before and during the War in Iraq, who can really put up a strong argument against this line of thinking?

A new Mark Fiore animated cartoon on W

Mark Fiore is one talented, thought-provoking journalist. He has some good stuff out, including a new animated video called Gone Fishin'. (Click the link to watch it.)

The vid above, about the fifth anniversary of 9-11, is the only good one I could find of his work on YouTube.

One other video he's made that I really loved is called Ouchie, a video about returning soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anyway, poke around his Website Here to check out his stuff.

Lurita Doan: GOP hack, on the govt's payroll

This testimony just blew me away. It's Lurita Doan, the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration, testifying before Congress about illegal political activity by the GSA.

Way to go all Oliver North/Ronald Reagan before Congress, Ms. Doan. (I'm referring to the Iran/Contra Scandal when President Reagan and Oliver North made "I can't recall" the reigning champ of political euphemisms in America, replacing I'm not a crook. Reagan's comment was knocked off the top spot by Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.")

Here's a quick explanation of the Doan controversy from WaPo's Wednesday edition:

Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a video conference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.

With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.

When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could "help 'our candidates' in the next elections," according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country."

On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman's committee to answer questions about the video conference and other issues. The committee is investigating whether remarks made during the video conference violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal penalties but can be removed from their jobs.

She attended the meeting, allegedly made those statements, yet this is the first time she's seeing these PowerPoint slides? Um, sure.

This is exactly the kind of abuse of power that needs to be stopped in government, and the chief reason why Democrats were sent to Congress last November - to clean up all of this corruption.

I wonder how much of this stuff has happened in the last 6+ years that we don't and may never know about?

What really peeves me is when people say, "Every administration does this sort of stuff, but these people are just getting caught." No, no, no. A thousand times NO. That does not excuse abuses of power and in some cases criminal wrongdoing by this administration and its party.

Any president and any party that partakes in this type of behavior to maintain and strengthen power should be called to task before the American people, and we are seeing that now.

Good. That's called checks and balances, and that's how Democracy is supposed to work. Asinine dolts like Tom DeLay love to try to fire up the right by saying, "This is what the next two years is going to be like." Right you are, Tom. And that's because we've suffered under six years of stupid, mindless, incompetent rule at the hands of Bush and his cabal.

And Doan is yet another example of this. She should be removed from her job if these allegations are true, and the evidence looks pretty strong.

We've all met liars in our lives - take a look at this tape and you make the call about whether she's being truthful or not. A five-year old can conclude she's not being truthful. She completely wilts under the questioning of Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA).

Doan, like so many others in this administration, should go.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

More pranks, from my favorite radio host

Since I'm on the prank phone call kick, I thought I'd bring you a few more. I'm a huge fan of Howard Stern, and have been for nearly 20 years. The reason why is simple - anyone who can make me smile and laugh on the way to work (WORK!) has got to be acknowledged as a major talent.

The brilliant thing about Howard is that he'll make you laugh in one breath, and outrage you in the next.

If you're good at reading between the lines, he's actually got some good political points to make on his show, too, if you can tolerate burps, farts and strippers. His show is better than ever on Sirius Satellite Radio.

I unearthed the above footage of Stuttering John, who became a famous intern on Stern's show because of his tendency to stutter in nervous situations. (The premise was celebrities would be more reluctant to turn down an interview from someone with a stuttering problem.) John is now "John Melendez" on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.

The footage above is, I believe, from Stern's old Channel 9 show. Howard isn't much to look at, that's for sure. Yiiikes. Styles sure do change over time.

Anyway, the footage above is Stuttering John asking nonsensical questions to celebrities, such as Helen Gurly Brown, Jackie Mason and Imelda Marcos. The part where he asks Marcos if she would fart and blame it on the dog is classic.



This is Stuttering John interviewing Roy Scheider. Good stuff.



This is footage of Stern getting into one of his legendary fights with his producer, Gary Dell'Abate "Bababooey" for not having a tape ready when he wanted it.

BOR gets pranked

I love a good prank phone call, so this one naturally had me laughing when I saw it on YouTube. Bill O'Reilly usually has pretty tight security on his show - no one's gettin' through with anything he doesn't approve of, and if they do, they are cut off in short order.

I have to give Billy credit, though - he handles this about as well as he could have by not giving the caller any satisfaction; he played dumb and pretended he didn't know what the caller was talking about.

Happy TMI, everyone!

Today is the anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. I can't believe that it's been 28 years - I wasn't quite eight years old yet, but I do remember the accident quite well, since I've lived in Pennsylvania all my life.

TMI is not far from the state's capitol of Harrisburg. At the time, the plant was owned by Metropolitan Edison (Med-Ed), which was pretty personal to me, since my father and my stepfather at the time both worked for Met-Ed.

Thankfully, neither had to go to TMI for cleanup efforts, but there were rumors that they would.

The accident is a pretty amazing event in our nation's and Pennsylvania's history. It changed the direction of our energy policy, if you can remember back that far to when we had one. Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush have done damn little to effectively implement any meaningful energy policy that's really made a difference.

I bring up the anniversary for two reasons:

Nuclear energy can and must be a part of any effective energy policy for the next administration. I say next, because President Bush has done little more than offer up wishful thinking about ethanol, and before that, hydrogen-powered cars.

Also, the TMI accident also was a time long, long ago when presidents took bold action (both Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter personally visited the island during the crisis), and also held incompetent people accountable for mistakes. To his credit, President Carter sacked Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie after the accident, saying the NRC "needed new leadership" as a result of many mistakes at the plant and the NRC's poor handling of the crisis.

Of course, if TMI happened on President Bush's watch, Hendrie would have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom.

Bush is "Deee Deee Deee"

You have to watch Carlos Mencia's show, Mind of Mencia, to understand "Dee Dee Dee," but this is pretty funny. If you haven't caught his show yet on Comedy Central, be sure to - he's very, very funny in a (mostly) clean way.

VoCorbulary

This is a brief glossary of terms that I occasionally use on the pages of Count Me Blue. A few friends and family have encouraged me to explain some of what I write on here, so from time to time, I'll humbly offer an explanation of phrases and abbreviations. I'll link to this list on the right side of the home page, so you'll be able to easily find it if you're ever wondering just what in the world I'm talking about.

Steady readers of my rants know that I have a profound love of the simile, metaphor, pun and analogy, and I can't always guarantee that they'll resonate. Sorry.

AFP - Agence France-Presse, the French news agency - the world's oldest.

AP - The Associated Press. C'mon, you knew that one.

BOR - Bill O'Reilly, pun totally intended.

CMB - Count me Blue. Color me happy that you're here.

DemocratIC - Something I just can't "get over"; President Bush saying we have a "Democrat controlled Congress" and "a Democrat majority" in Congress. Of course, when questioned about his semantics, Bush plays dumb (like that's hard), saying he "didn't even think about it." This is an intentional snub which goes all the way back to McCarthyism, when Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy refused to refer to Democrats as members of the Democratic Party. He often stated he didn't want to give the impression that "Democrats were truly Democratic." GOP hacks like Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich popularized the term since the 1990s.

DMB - The Dave Matthews Band - my favorite band of all time - 15 shows and counting.

Faux News Channel, or Fox Noise Channel - Surprise - Fox "News" Channel. And no, I couldn't resist a shot, even in a definition.

Fersatz - a portmanteau of Fox News and ersatz, because Fox News is the best example of a fake news broadcast in America today.

GOP - Grand Old Party. This nickname has been in use to refer to the Republican Party for decades, and it's easier to write. I loves me some abbreviations.

HuffPo - The Huffington Post - Arianna Huffington's Website and blog.

H/T - Hat Tip - whenever I put h/t at the end of a post, I'm acknowledging that I received the story idea, video, picture, etc. from another Website.

KO - Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

NYT - The New York Times

O'Lielly, Bill - Fox News political commentator Bill O'Reilly. I happily admit that I got the term from liberal author and Minnesota Senatorial candidate Al Franken.

Repube(s) - My derisive term for Republicans. I don't always use it, but when I'm in a cranky or angry mood and a Republican is involved, out it comes. It's sophomoric, childish and immature - I don't deny any of it. But, I submit that it's no more childish than many of the terms in popular use by many Republicans, including referring to the Democratic Party as "the Democrat Party." Another bonus - the pronunciation of the word - [Ree-PYOOB]. Sometimes, among close friends, when I'm in a particularly childish and prankish mood, I bring up the word "pubes" or "pubic" in conversation. The inevitable "eeeewwwwww!" makes me laugh - it's an almost universal reaction. (I always get this reaction when I use the word in conversation with my wife, followed by "Hooonnnnnnnnney! It's gross!") Full disclosure - I didn't come up with the word - I read it on another blog and picked up on it. I have no idea which blog - I've visited dozens if not hundreds at one time or another. There you have it - Repubes.

RJs Journey - the former moniker of Count Me Blue.

RRR - Radical Religious Right.

SC - The Supreme Court of the United States.

Smackdass - A smacked ass - a genuinely contemptuous person.

SOTU - State of the Union (speech).

State TV - Could I be referring to anything other than Fox? Hopefully, after November 2008, I can refer to this as "the resistance channel."

STFU! - Shut The F--- Up!

The Georgia Leech - Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The Internets - this is a Bushism, which recalls President Bush referring to the Internet as "The Internets." Just another example of the acrimonious relationship Bush has with proper English and grammar.

WaPo - The Washington Post

WSJ - The Wall Street Journal

WTF? - What The F---?

That's all for now, but as I think of more, I'll update the list. Truthfully, sometimes I write in my own lingo and I forget that I'm doing it, so I'll try to remember that not everyone knows what my abbreviations (and sometimes derisive nicknames) mean.

Crazy lightning strike

This is crazy - a wicked lightning strike last Friday in Oklahoma City. I've loved thunderstorms every since I was a young adult. They are one of my favorite things about summer - when we move to California I will definitely miss them.

What a video - it must have been pretty petrifying to be that close to such a tremendous bolt.

McCain supporting gays?

Judas John McCain's MySpace page was the victim of a hack earlier today, when someone put the following text on his profile: "Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage. Particularly marriage between passionate females."

Okay, kind of childish, but in my view funny, too, in a sad kind of way.

Hey, it's too bad that McCain won't support gays, who should have the support of every presidential candidate. (I know, that's wishful thinking.)



Honestly though, if this was about anything other than gay marriage, it would be totally believable, since McCain has switched positions on just about everything else. I think deep down that McCain is not homophobic, but we'll never know for sure - not as long as he's a Republican hoping to become his party's nominee for president. He must sell-out to the rabid, radical religious right, but, as you can probably tell from the video above, his heart just ain't in it.

He really will do or say just about anything to become president.

At long last... Photoshop CS3!

I've been waiting for this for a long time. Today, Adobe Systems, my favorite software company, announced the new version of Adobe Photoshop - dubbed Adobe CS3 (Creative Suite 3), or Photoshop 10. Since I own Photoshop 7.0, I'm well overdue for an upgrade. Most exciting of all, since I'm in education, I get the educational discount.

If anyone has any recommended seminars to attend, I'm all ears. Ben Willmore has an excellent reputation as one of the premiere Photoshop experts in the country, but he doesn't tour very often. I'm hoping to attend a seminar sometime this summer.

I've also downloaded trial version of Adobe Lightroom, and I'm going to poke around that over Easter Break to see if it's worth the investment. With my educational discount, the price certainly is right for Lightroom.

I just wanted to share my excitement and enthusiasm with today's long-awaited Photoshop announcement. A new version only comes out every two to three years, so it's a pretty big deal, especially when you are three versions behind!

My two favorite TV commentators together

I love this interview - two of my favorite political personalities on television. In addition to The Daily Show & The Colbert Report, if you're missing Bill Maher Friday nights on HBO and Keith Olbermann every weeknight on MSNBC, you're missing some ot the best political commentary on TV.

And Maher has a point about Bush's reaction upon hearing the news the morning of 9-11. I've often what went through this mind at htat moment. Obviously, we'll never know, but I've always thought it was something like, "Wow, the presidency isn't going to be a cakewalk after all."

Colbert's latest ON NOTICE List

Worth another quick look - Freedom

It's been a while since I've posted this, so I thought I'd do it again. (I think the last time I put it up was the morning of election day last November.

With all that is going on and all the scandals that are rocking our nation's capitol these days, this video is still as apropos as ever. I still shake my head about Ned Lamont - I can't believe Joe Lieberman got reelected, especially considering his votes, behavior and remarks since beating Lamont last fall. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.

Enjoy it - I hope it motivates you a little bit to get a little more politically active if you aren't, or maybe even more if you already are. I strongly urge you to do something about all of the problems with our federal government. It's the primary reason I write on this blog, to try to affect even a *little* change.

To that end, I hope to be bringing you a lot more in the coming days. I've been hopelessly bogged down the last few evenings, and I won't get nearly as much up tonight as I'd like, but tomorrow evening is set aside for a great deal of writing. Much of it will be letter writing to members of Congress, and I will share the text of those letters on here, which you are free to use for your own letters that I hope you take a few minutes to write. That's why God (and Bill Gates) gave us copy/paste.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.

Tony Snow has cancer again

This might not come off as sincere because I'm typing it, but I sincerely do mean it.

I just read that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has cancer again. I've screamed and howled at some things that Snow has said in the past, but when you read about something like this, politics seems so stupid... so trivial.

I hope he beats it. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy. I've seen it strike down too many people in the prime of their lives. Snow is 51 years old. 51.

From AP:
Snow had his colon removed in 2005 and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. A small growth was discovered last year in his lower right pelvic area, and it was removed on Monday. Doctors determined that it was cancerous, and that his cancer had metastasized, or spread, to his liver, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Here's hoping you get well soon and beat cancer this time, too, Tony.

Another one of millions of tragic examples as to why we need to find a cure for this dreadful killer.

Photo from AP

W's urge to purge... another peek < ò > < ó >

This story, which I originally found on C&L and read about further in a March 22 WaPo piece, floored me. What shocked me even more was that Chris Wallace explored this on his show yesterday.

It seems that the Bush Justice Department stuck its nose right where it should not have gone - right up Big Tobacco's tar hole.

The story's so unreal, I'm not even going to try to describe it - just read a few excerpts for yourself from the WaPo story:

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government's tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and Keisler's deputy at the time, Dan Meron.

News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.

WTF? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that someone is getting paid here. This was the government's chance to drop the hammer on Big Tobacco, which has been exploiting the American public for decades, including intentionally putting additives in cigarettes that made them more addictive.

Here's a cheerful thought - if this administration would do something like this with Big Tobacco, what kind of influence do you think Bush and Cheney, oil men both, have over what goes on with Big Oil? Read on...

Yesterday [March 21] was the first time that any of the government lawyers on the case spoke at length publicly about what they considered high-level interference by Justice officials.

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

Hey, where there's smoke, there's fire. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush, Rove, Cheney and their cabal played a big role in the attorney firings. Now it's just a matter of finding out for sure by uncovering the legal trail, and deposing witnesses, under oath and with a legal transcript.

Hannity: putting the Faux in Fox News

Sean Hannity might be the first person in history to do a political television show without even following the news. Wait, that can't be possible, can it? Or, maybe he's just knowingly lying, like so many members of the Bush Administration.

Anyway, you only need to go about 15 seconds into the video clip above to know what something has gone horribly, horribly wrong with Hannity's research department. In fact, the last person in charge of finding facts before a broadcast, Hannity himself, was relieved of those duties, oh, something like six years ago.

The president has NOT OFFERED his aides to testify under oath under any circumstances, you moron.

And for those of you who think it was an honest mistake by Hannity? Let's look at a few other "mistakes" by Fersatz News...

Mark Foley, a Democrat? Ha.

This one's over the top, even for these people. I don't know if this has been Photoshopped, and that kind of points to what Fersatz News has always been - a total right-wing network. The fact that this is even remotely believable should outrage all Americans.

If it were up to the Republican Party, Debate about any military matters would be a battlefield casualty. Along those lines, if Debate served in Iraq, would he have to serve three tours of duty? Would Debate, if he was wounded on the battlefield, have to come home and stay in a moldy, Roach Motel at Walter Reed? Hey, maybe Debate wouldn't have to serve in this war, like every other prominent Republican war-monger in this administration shirked duty in Vietnam. Ahh, if that happened, Dick would be awfully proud of you, Debate!

Photos from Crooks and Liars

MTP: Good Gonzo chat, but T Russ lets Senator Specter off EASY

I watched Meet the Press yesterday, and I must say that host Tim Russert redeemed himself somewhat after having Tom DeLay on last week. That's not too surprising to me, though - Russert rarely has two bad weeks in a row.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) were on to talk about the continuing saga of the eight dismissed federal prosecutors.

Just a few thoughts, and then I'll move on to other aspects of this story in different posts.

First of all, if I hear one more Republican mention that President Clinton dismissed all 93 federal prosecutors when discussing Alberto Gonzales, I'm going to scream until my voice goes out. All together now, folks - COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Just about every president replaces all of the federal prosecutors when first taking office. It's the standard MO - prosecutors are expected to turn in their resignation letters with the arrival of a new administration. Clinton did what just about every president does. And, after the first term, if a president is around for a second term, typically some, if not all, are replaced.

That's not what the controversy is in this case, period. At issue here is that many of these attorneys were fired because they were not prosecuting cases the White House wanted (in some cases, more Democrats); and in other cases, the White House was peeved that certain Republicans were being targeted.

For instance...

As reported by the Congressional Research Service - a piecemeal "purge" of attorneys (especially mid-term) is not normal, or ordinary. Of the 468 U.S. attorneys confirmed by the Senate over a 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily. (This number does not include the eight that Bush bounced.) This excludes the typical resetting with every administration, which I mention AGAIN. I wish people would just stop it with the Clinton references. I'm going to start calling Clinton "Crutch" because more than any other person on the planet, he's been leaned on by Repubes in trouble.

The stories about WHY these attorneys were fired seems to change like the temperature, too. For example, check out what happened to David C. Iglesias, the fired attorney in New Mexico...

In February 2007, Iglesias publicly alleged that "two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator" and that "the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions."

As a quick aside, U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada and California were also conducting corruption probes involving Republicans at the time of their dismissals, but I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

According to Iglesias (and this was later confirmed), prior to the 2006 midterm election, U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) called and "pressured" Iglesias "to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator."

When Iglesias told Domenici that an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, Iglesias said "the line went dead," and he was fired one week later by the Bush Administration.

After initially denying the call, Domenici recently copped to making it.

According to a WaPo article, "A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of [Congressional] ethics rules."

Domenici admitted calling Iglesias despite initially lying about it, but Domenici said he never used the word "November" when he called Iglesias about an ongoing Albuquerque courthouse corruption case.

Yea, right.

I'll have more in a bit about subpoenas, A-Gonz and Arlen Specter.

More DeLay delusions

I'm not done with DeLay by a damn site. Take a look at two more pretty good examples of the man's character. First, Keith Olbermann made a special comment about DeLay's new garbage book, which it appears no one is buying. Bring it, KO...



Olbermann put author DeLay's Hitler reference in perfect perspective. I'm so sick of hearing about Nazis and World War II in our political discourse. There ought to be a law... In fact, both have been referenced so often while being used to justify so much, I wonder if Newt Gingrich used the Nazis as an excuse when he got caught cheating on his wife?

NEWT: Yea, yea, okay, I f----- her. But, Germany invaded Poland! What are you, an appeaser? Are you siding with the terrorists? Why not just let me finish my job? I was just getting to the surge!

WIFE: I've got chemo in 20 minutes, Newt. GET OUT!



Next, check this one out - here, DeLay, appearing on CNN with Wolf Blitzer late last week, takes President Clinton to task for things such as cheating in golf. I can't believe I just typed that.

His seemingly insane comments, coupled with his denial that he ever did anything wrong while being strongly linked to the Jack Abramoff Scandal, simply makes him irrelevant political theater at this point.

Chuck Hagel - a GOPer I like

This is a pretty strong, powerful appearance by Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel on ABC's This Week yesterday morning.

Hagel answers to no one but the people who put him where he is - the people of Nebraska. He's a man I could and would honestly consider voting for if he were to get the Republican nomination for president next year. He hasn't declared that he will run, yet, but all indications are that he will.

I read the Esquire Magazine article that George Stephanopoulos refers to in this piece. In it, Hagel takes a pretty courageous stand against the president. And Hagel's right - he doesn't call for the impeachment of President Bush, but he openly says that it's an option, just as he did yesterday.

I think impeachment should be the last option for any president, including Bush, but the more this administration openly defies Congress, as well as the reality of the situation in Iraq, it could become a more viable option in the months ahead.

I just hope that members of Congress don't say to themselves, "he'll be gone soon, anyway, so let's just let him slide," if impeachable offenses are uncovered, which is looking more and more likely as the days go by. NO. As of today, Bush has 665 days left in office, and that's a long time for America to endure him, if for every single one of those days he plans on thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people.

The Alberto Gonzales situation is clearly the most troubling, but there are plenty of other things that need looking into as well. This is why America sent Democrats to Congress - to bring oversight to an out-of-control Republican-dominated federal government.

And that's precisely what Democrats are doing. Keep it up, ladies and gentlemen. Put the Check back in Check and Balances.Wherever the truth leads, so be it, and that includes any Democrats who are implicated in these scandals.

I just want answers and explanations as to how we got in the mess in the first place.

MTP marks Iraq War Anniversary with...... TOM DELAY?

I've been meaning to get this one out, but other topics have been winning out and taking up my writing time lately. But, trust me, this one's worth a few minutes of your time...

Oh, have I been waiting to blog about this one. Before I get into it, I'll offer this qualifier: I love Meet the Press. I love it that the show's been on the air since 1947. I love it that it brings political figures into my living room every Sunday morning about issues that matter to me. I've been watching MTP for years. Rare is the week that goes by where I don't either watch it, or listen to a Podcast of it. On balance, I like Tim Russert, who's been hosting the show for 15 years. However, I don't always agree with his choice of guests. I don't know what goes into booking various guests on his show, or who is responsible for booking them, but whoever that person is ought to be fired for booking the guests it did before the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War's start.

Eight days ago, this was MTP's line-up during the show's last 1/2 hour to debate the war:

On the Democratic side, Russert bagged Tom Andrews, a former House member who has been out of Congress for the last 12 years, but the leader of Win Without War; and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Vice Admiral and Naval Academy graduate, who just happens to have a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.

Okay, not bad. Russert could have done better than Andrews, but not bad.

However, on the Republican side of the debate, Russert had on Tom DeLay, the disgraced former House Majority Leader who resigned from Congress under federal indictment, and Richard Perle, who, as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001-2003, was one of the principle architects of the Iraq War.

Wow, nice choices, Tim. Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld available?

If you didn't get a chance to see this particular episode of MTP, you've got to take 15 minutes to watch this circus. I can't post it here myself, since I can't host videos directly on my blog since it's hosted on Blogger, and YouTube only lets users post clips that are 10 minutes or shorter. But, I did find a clip of the DeLay ridiculousness on Crooks and Liars. Get it by Clicking Here, and it should be the second or third entry down.



Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow took some pretty good swings at DeLay last Monday - above is a clip of her DeLay diatribe. I love Maddow - I listen to her show when I can, and I have her Podcasts loaded into my iPod, so I listen to them when I have time.

In case you can't view the video, here's a brief transcript. Try to read it without falling down in fits of laughter.

The entire segment starts out with DeLay's grandstanding (surprise)...

RUSSERT: And we're back. Welcome all. The war in Iraq four years old, and let me show you some of the numbers after the first four years. U.S. troops killed, 3,192; US troops wounded, 24,042. The cost is $351 billion. If you include budget requests, it would be about $500 billion. And the Iraqi civilian deaths, some 54,000.

Congressman DeLay, is the war in Iraq worth the cost in life and treasure?

DELAY: Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since American has been attacked by these terrorists. We seem to forget that we are at war, and when you're at war, you've got to fight that war to win rather than fight the war for political posturing. We have been fighting that war. Sure, it--it's been tough. We've had to write a complete new war manual on how to fight terrorists that [sic] want to kill women and children. If you compared that note to, say, the Vietnam War in the same period of time, you're talking about much more in casualties and, and relative spending.

##

First off, someone needs to give "The Exterminator" a grammar lesson on the "that/who" rule. But, I wouldn't expect a rube like DeLay to know it - political character assassination is his speciality. If political hate speech and invective were knowledge, he'd have a Ph.D. Back to the show...

DeLAY: "...this is hard [referring to Democrats' desire to set a deadline for withdraw or redeployment], so I want to surrender."

SESTAK: Absolutely not.

DeLAY: That's exactly what it is.

SESTAK: You never just keep banging your head against the wall, we learn in the military. Is there a better way to go about it? And that's what this bill does is it takes the last leverage we have to make it happen.

RUSSERT: But setting a date for–is setting a date for withdrawal...

DeLAY: ...every step of the way, undermine–I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

SESTAK: Tim, I spent 31 years in the service of our nation leading men and women into combat in war. And I always assumed, at least I always hoped, that the men and women back here, the policy makers, day in and day out, were spending hours, weeks, debating about the best use of this national treasure. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best a few weeks ago when he said, as someone asked him about this debate and what's going on in the House, he said, "Our men and women of our military are educated. They understand the democratic process." I remember when working for President Clinton as director of defense policy, when I didn't agree with you, Tom, but that there was the Buyer Amendment to stop in a year any more funding for our troops in Bosnia. And then there was, in 1999, the effort not to place any more troops not–in Kosovo. While I may have disagreed with you, I respected your office, that that is the constitutional duty of Congress, to take pride for the common defense. [Emphasis Mine]

DeLAY: Joe, you're a congressman. Go back to Iraq and talk to those same soldiers and you'll get exactly a different response from those soldiers.

SESTAK: I talk to them, Tom. I talk to them all the time.

DeLAY: I do, too.

###

Does anyone honestly believe that Tom DeLay talks to soldiers in Iraq? Or Iraqis? That one's got b.s. written all over it.

A little more DeLay...

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: Tom, with all due respect, I think I'd be much more comfortable taking the military strategy advice of Admiral Sestak than, than Tom DeLay. And listen, you know, we in Washington love to talk about what's in the best interest of the, the people of Iraq. We've been doing this for years and years. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think? If you ask the people...

DeLAY: Well, let's ask what's in the best interest of the American people.

ANDREWS: Well, ask the people--let's ask--let's ask the people of Iraq, OK?

DeLAY: No, let's ask the American people.

ANDREWS: What is--let's ask them first, OK? Because listen, they're the ones that have the most at stake. They're the ones that have the most at stake.

DeLAY: I'm more interested in the American people.

##

Evidently, since DeLay was forced to leave Congress under federal indictment, he isn't following polls too much anymore. A majority of the American people want us out of Iraq. If you pick up a newspaper other than The Washington Times or watched some television other than Fox State TV, you'd know that. (I believe the latest poll has Americans wanting to leave Iraq by just shy of 2/3 - it's at around 60 percent.)

But wait! There's more... (Feel like you're watching a Ginsu Knife commercial yet?

I'd be remiss if I didn't miss war criminal Richard Pearle, taking an Al Gore quote completely out of context, as reported by Media Matters:



HOWEVER, Gore STILL opposed going into Iraq.

Eh, I could go on an on about this memorable Meet the Press, but why bother? It did bug the living daylights out of me that Russert (or his superiors) decided to bring in Tom DeLay, so he could plug his piece of garbage tome. I wouldn't buy his book if someone paid me a grand to read it.

I counted Russert holding up the book at least three times (maybe more - I was doing stuff around the house as it was on). How annoying. Go on Fox News and plug your tripe.

Hannity gets embarrassed

Just as predicted - Repubes are melting down because Democrats in the House did the courageous thing last week by voting for the funding of the troops in Iraq that President Bush wants, but also adding a deadline for when the troops must withdraw.

College drop-out Hannity picked the wrong witness to lead in this clip, and it's awesome. Just a couple of quick points, because thinking about how utterly absurd Hannity is exhausts me.

How funny is it for Hannity to bring up money? We're what, $500 billion into the Iraq War now? If you're going to be outraged, and you should be, direct your outrage to the appropriate people, and that would be the Bush Administration and all of the people who sold us this war because Saddam was an "immediate threat" and a "clear and present danger to the United States." Liars.

Half a trillion dollars, and all we got was this lousy civil war. Hmm. There's a t-shirt in there somewhere.

It's also asinine for Hannity to be talking about Democrats doing some arm twisting and deal making to get the votes on the war funding bill. Repubes did that in the House for years (12, to be exact) to get things passed. I have many memories of Tom DeLay keeping votes open for hours while he went around the floor, intimidating people to vote with the Republicans. But, should we be surprised that someone like Hannity has selective memory? We should not.

Pork barrel spending is a valid criticism, but criticize both parties. Judas John McCain, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and President Bush crying foul about pork now is hypocrisy's finest hour.

One has to dig about as deep as a mud puddle to find examples of Republican excess.

Since I live in Pennsylvania, I'm very familiar with pork. If you've never heard of former Representative Bud Shuster, click on his link and read about all of the b.s. money he brought to Pennsylvania, specifically millions brought to his home district for highways. (Too bad he couldn't deliver for all of Pennsylvania, because we still have horrifically bad roads.)

My all-time favorite is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens of "Internet Tubes" fame, who once threatened to resign from the Senate (could we ever get THAT lucky?) if funding was stripped away from a proposed $315 million Gravina Island Bridge, a.k.a. The Bridge to Nowhere. You've got to read about it to believe it. Also check out the Knik Arm Bridge, which may run as high as $1.5 billion. The one good thing about global warming? Maybe it will thaw out some of the frozen, idiotic brains in our northern most state.

Pork barrel spending must end if we are ever going to get our budgets under control, but to blame Democrats for the problem is absurd.

Oh, and those bridges? They still might be built. Repubes took the very, very courageous step of stripping out the funding for both bridges, but not lowering the amount of money going to Alaska in general. Ooooh! Former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski vowed full funding for both bridges. It remains to be seen if new Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin will keep the bridges funded.

Your tax pork at work.

Not much time to write 'til tonight...

But in the meantime, a few hard hittin' cartoons to start your week. I found some good ones today.

I can think of 500 billion reasons why this 'toon hits painfully close to home.

Speaks for itself. "If you're losing the argument, change the argument." -- Somewhere on Karl Rove's desk, there's probaby a granite stone with those words chisled into it. He's turned changing the argument and coming up with effective distrations into an art form. Karl Rove - the modern-day Rasputin.

A homerun. And yes, Newt really did send his wife divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. If there is a hell, the presidential suite there is named in his honor. I'll have more on Edwards' decision to stay in the race later tonight.

This is another cartoon that is painfully apropos. I've been reading and listening to a great deal of stories in the media lately about a possible economic collapse. There are lots of signs, and one of the biggest is the rate of foreclosures, which is skyrocketing. I was just telling Vandra last night that we need to get rid of our variable rate mortgage, immediately. We're looking into it. More on this later, too. I've got lots to write about tonight.