GOP propaganda machine in high gear

This morning, I thought I'd drop by Drudge's Website Republican Homepage to see what sewage he's spewing in the face of a pretty dreadful day for this party. It didn't take me long to find stories & rumors that are a best wild distortions, and at worst made-up crap that plays into the GOP's PR fantasy machine. Right at the top of the page, I read the headline, "REPUBLICAN ELECTION BOARD WORKERS THROWN OUT IN PHILLY..." so I clicked on the link.

After clicking, I was taken to a site that I hadn't heard about in a long time and that I care about even less, Townhall.com, a right-wing site that is even more blatant than Drudge about everything from climate change to voter fraud to Obama's associations and Ronald Reagan's papacy.

Anyway, the story, entitled, "A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud," has so many holes in it, I won't try to debunk them all. But, one thing did catch my eye.

In 2004, Drudge breathlessly reported, without doing any reporting, mind you, that machines in Philadelphia had started the day with thousands of votes already rigged for John Kerry. The media in Philly was hot on this story for about 15 minutes, and it died a quick death - not a shred of truth to it, period. In the meantime, before the veracity of the story was revealed, I got a phone call that day from a very good friend of mine, indignant that Philly was rigging the vote for Kerry. It's amazing and stupefying to me that a total frickin' liar and partisan like Drudge drives the news cycle in this country. Maybe someday legit media will wake up to his partisanship, but I sincerely doubt it.

Fast forward to today, and here's how Townhall's story reads at the bottom:

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

I know for a fact that no machines were rigged with extra votes for Kerry, so that gun accusation rings more than a bit hollow, too.

On to today's story... According to Townhall:

GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

[...]

"Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process," said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.

Before we rush to judgment about what's going on in Philadelphia, perhaps a legit media outlet ought to do some actual reporting vs. partisan sites like Drudge & Townhall making wild, unsubstantiated accusations about voting conditions on the ground there. As for the '04 recap, both sites are no doubt counting on low-information voters, many of whom will witlessly read and/or hear what Townhall and Drudge "reported" and assume that all of it happened in '04.

To be clear, I abhor voter intimidation and suppression of any kind of any party, and I would more than publicly condemn it if this is indeed what's happening in Philly. But, I'm just more than skeptical because many GOP hack sites lack so much as a morsel of credibility considering all of the lies and innuendos that were spread in '04.

What's more, this is a classic play from Karl Rove's playbook. As wholesale election fraud is taking place around the country (plenty of reports are already coming in about it, and I will write about this at length later today and tonight), the right cooks up a story about poll workers being ousted in Philly, and that gets all the press. Well, it's not going work this time, at least if the Obama campaign has anything to say about it, and here's betting that it has plenty to say.

TDS on pundits: "Who the F&%! is this guy?"

I'm behind on my Daily Shows, but I saw this a night or two ago, and I got a pretty big kick out of it - a not-so-subtle commentary on just how the 24-hour cable news networks fill up their time. It's to the point now that just about anyone can be a pundit or an expert on something.

And who's that guy? As Stewart tells us, he's Ed Rogers, a lobbyist and former protégé of Lee Atwater, the architect behind President George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, one of the dirtiest in modern history. (On his death bed, Atwater expressed remorse for all of the tearing down and smearing he'd done over his political career.) In short, Atwater was Karl Rove before Karl Rove. So, it's a pretty safe bet that Ed Rogers is another intolerant Repube who's more than willing to spread lies, slander and defamation about Obama, all in the name of winning an election.

Citizen's arrest attempted on Karl Rove

This is a pretty good piece of footage from this past week that I had to share - a woman attempting to do a citizen's arrest on Karl Rove at an event in California. Of course, it's obvious that it was a publicity stunt, but I love it. I really do hope that protesters make his life miserable for the rest of his life, or at least as long as he's capable of giving public speeches. He deserves nothing less.

Kudos to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell for chastising Rove on negative campaigning, too - something that Rove probably hears far too little of, at least to his face.

In lieu of wealth, McSame's spreading something else around

I was listening to last night's Real Time With Bill Maher this morning, and I heard some pretty sage words from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (at right) that really struck me. We've been hearing all sorts of rhetoric from the McCain camp about Obama's comment that he intends to "spread the wealth around," which has been stoking up people's prejudices and hatred toward the lower class since those words came out of his mouth.

Actually the hatred in this country toward those less advantaged is nothing new; it's been happening for decades now, since at least 1980, and actually even longer. Of course, the right is willfully and forcefully aided in no small part in spreading this hatred by the hatemongers on right-wing talk radio and TV: Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc.

What gets pathetically little coverage in the media, and quite frankly what the Obama campaign should be doing a better job of articulating, is just how spectacular the chasm is between America's wealthiest and poorest, and how this democracy-threatening trend has spiraled out of control during the Bush administration.

Take it away, Bernie:

We don't talk about it terribly often, something they don't talk about in Congress and certainly in the corporate media - that the wealthiest 1 percent in America earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We have by far, more inequality in terms of wealth and income than any other major country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty and more billionaires [than any other country] and I don't think that's what our forefathers intended.

Truer words have never been spoken by a politician in my lifetime.

What Sanders had to say is beyond inconvenient for Republicans and their many right-wing enablers - the right has successfully used Karl Rove wedge issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control, RELIGION, immigration (the '08 campaign's #1 wedge issue) and xenophobia to distract people who really need economic relief from nearly 30 years of Reaganomics, which has bankrupted our treasury and worked to destroy the middle class in this country.

We (and by "we," I mean the middle and lower classes of America) are never going to take our country back until we stopped being duped by politicians who really don't have our best interests at heart.

Incidentally, Sen. Bernie Sanders appears on Thom Hartmann's radio show on Air America Radio every Friday for a one-hour Brunch With Bernie segment, and it's excellent. I'm never going to live in Vermont (too cold for me), but I wish I could cast a vote for Sanders, and I hope more like him get elected to the U.S. Congress.

Does Mac have the balls?

The million dollar question tonight is whether McCain actually has the balls to bring up Bill Ayers, a 60s radical that McCain and the stooges and organizations who back him have endlessly tried to tie to Obama. In fact, Sean Goebbels has been thumping this "association" for years.

Anyway, this is what McCain had to say about the Ayers issue:

"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn’t have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.

"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time."

McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.

In many ways, I really do hope that McDrilly brings up Ayers, because it will make him look even more petty that he is. What's worse, if he does raise the issue, it will give Obama a prime opportunity to attack McCain directly about some of his shady associations. G.Gordon Liddy, anyone? Dip-Shiddy last week held a fundraiser for McSame. No big deal, you say? Well, Liddy in the past has had this to say about ATF agents: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." Nice!

There's more - Dip-Shiddy also concocted plans during the Nixon administration to firebomb the Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war protesters during the 1972 Republican National Convention, and to kill liberal columnist Jack Anderson. Liddy is also a convicted felon who served 5.5 years in prison for his misdeeds during Watergate. Oh, and who freed him? That bastard Jimmy Carter!

Anyway, Liddy is an irrelevant talking head who is ignored by most. But, that's not the point. It's not a stretch to say that Liddy was involved in domestic terrorist activities. So, if McCain wants to make the mistake of bringing up the equally irrelevant Ayers, Obama should slap him down with a few facts about Liddy. That's what I'd do. Or, he could express amazement that McCain would focus on such minute, stupid details that Americans don't care about. Bet on the latter approach. After all, Obama mostly taking the high road probably has a great deal to do with why he's pulling away in the polls.

Here's what Obama had to say about the possibility of Ayers being raised in tonight's debate:

"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate."

One thing's for sure, if McCain goes there, it's going to get really interesting.

Actually, upon further reflection, if I were Obama, I'd say this if McCain goes all Ayers tonight: "You're a desperate campaigner, John. I don't think anyone cares the smears you're using to try and gain traction and favor with voters. It won't work - I feel that most Americans have grown tired of the politics of Karl Rove. I find it ironic that you're employing these tactics now, especially considering what he did to you in South Carolina in 2000." I'd love to see the look on McLame's face if Obama said it. I know he won't, but that would put McCranky in his place in a hurry.

McCain entertains... himself

This is some pretty good video of Sen. John McCain cracking himself up during an event with Lance Armstrong a few days ago. Notice all of the polite applause in the background. Pretty interesting that McCain would choose to meet with Armstrong, an alleged cheater in the Tour de France. Maybe Armstrong is giving him tips on how to cheat to win. Wait, McCain has plenty of Karl Rove's minions (including Rove himself, as a consultant, even though it's going unacknowledged in the press) to use smear and fear tactics to try and win in November.

I can only hope and pray that American won't fall for these same tactics for three elections in a row. Obama had better be ready to fight back against the wholesale lies that are being spewed out by McCain's campaign. More on those in a minute.

Rove refuses to testify before House

Dan Abrams reported on this the other night, and today it became official - Karl Rove was a no-show before Congress today to discuss the Don Siegelman case (I'll be writing a whole lot more about Siegelman in the coming days).

This is beyond outrageous, and I'd love to know how he can get away with ignoring a Congressional subpoena. Once again, this is a golden opportunity for Congressional Democrats to show the American people that they mean business. Something tells me they will fall down miserably, just like they have for the last 18 months.

Rove ought to be found in contempt of Congress, and his ass ought to be thrown in jail. However, I'm not holding my breath. Why? Well, who controls the federal prosecutors in the justice department? That would be President Bush, who has made a mockery of our justice system at the federal level, politicizing the selection and performance of federal prosecutors like no president before him, which goes to the heart of the Siegelman case.

Here's something to chew on - if it were you, me, or any other American citizen, could any of us get away with ignoring Congress? Yea, right - we would be sitting behind bars before you could say the word impeach, but as in so many other instances during this administration, the law just doesn't seem to apply to these people.

From HuffPo:

Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate - perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.

Lawmakers subpoenaed Rove in May in an effort to force him to talk about whether he played a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue cases against Democrats, such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, or in firing federal prosecutors considered disloyal to the Bush administration.

Rove had been scheduled to appear at the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.

A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally.

What a load of BS - I love it that House Republicans can say with a straight face that House Democrats are performing "political stunts." How long ago was the Clinton impeachment again?

Rove's offer to meet with House Democrats behind closed doors, not under oath and with no transcript, is about as admirable as President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. If you don't have anything to hide, and if you plan on telling the truth, what's the problem with testifying under oath in front of the cameras? It's not groundbreaking to conclude that Rove has plenty to hide, and he's ducking behind the White House and President Bush, as usual. Rove reminds me of the smart ass wimp on the playground who had a big friend who everyone was afraid of. He hurls insults, slander, lies and ruins political careers, and when he's called on it, he runs and hides.

I hope Nancy Pelosi does the right and honorable thing. Click Here to contact her. I'll be sending her an e-mail over the weekend, and I'll share my letter with you when I do.

A This Modern World two-fer

[Click on image to go to full comic]

I forgot to bring you This Modern World last week, so I figured I'd bring you both last week's (below) and this week's (above) in one shot. Both are pretty good, but my favorite one is below - Karl Rove's supposed "expertise" about what Repubes need to do to win the election this November. It's pretty amazing (but not surprising) that Fox hired him to offer his commentary about the upcoming elections. Considering that this disgrace to humanity has played such a critical role in putting the country where it is today, about the last thing the GOP should do the GOP should listen to all of his sage advice when plotting their fall '08 strategy. Enjoy.

[Click on image to go to full comic]

McClellan's book a stinging defection for W

Ron Ziegler's Scott McClellan's book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception is turning into one of this summer's must-reads for political buffs, yours truly included. And, when the smoke clears, there can be absolutely no doubt that McClellan, Bush's former White House press secretary, will join the lengthening list of former Bush administration officials who will be attacked, vilified and crucified as if they have committed the worst, treasonous acts by another human being by just about any current member of the Bush cabal. (Richard A. Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, and there will undoubtedly be many others.)

I'll get to some excerpts in a minute, but having only read some excerpts from the book, I have to at least tentatively give McClellan some credit for having the courage to stand up and call out the Bush administration. However, my big question is, while all this was happening, why didn't he stand up then? It takes considerably less courage to stand up to a president when your ass isn't on the line. Courage in presidential administrations is so rare these days. It may happen behind the scenes somewhat, but I can't even remember the last time a high-level man or woman in an administration said, "I resign" over a decision made by a president. Gone are the days of people like Jerald terHorst, President Ford's press secretary, who immediately resigned when he learned that Ford, in a controversial move to this day, pardoned President Nixon.

Yesterday, The Politico ran some very interesting excerpts from the book. Among them:

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: "Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign." The offer "was rejected almost out of hand by others present," McClellan writes.

• Bush was "clearly irritated, ... steamed," when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: "'It's unacceptable,' Bush continued, his voice rising. 'He shouldn't be talking about that.'"

• Instead, McClellan's tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

But he writes that he later was told that "Karl was convinced we needed to do it - and the president agreed."

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term," he writes. "And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."

Of course, the ideological buzzards are already circling McClellan's political carcass, ready to rip him to shreds. Actually, it's already started, and there are only excerpts out right now.

Keith Olbermann offered come commentary last night on McClellan's book, along with Air America's Rachel Maddow...

Probably my favorite part of the above clip is when Olbermann and Maddow mention what McClellan writes about propaganda and its role in selling the War in Iraq to the American people. Propaganda?!? In a time of war? Wow.

Below is Karl Rove McCain campaign consultant, political commentator for Fersatz News Channel, throwing McClellan to the wolves.

It's amazing how someone who was Bush's press secretary for so long is now all of a sudden an imbecile, just because he now thinks it's appropriate to speak out against all that Bush has done.

So, let's get this straight - every single word Scott McClellan wrote is a total lie, and Karl Rove is completely innocent. RIGHT! Is there anyone who honestly believes that? C'mon...

McClellan will be on NBC's Today Show tomorrow morning, so set your DVRs, or your alarm clock, because it should be a good interview. Here's hoping that Matt Lauer brings his A-game.

Actually, my favorite reaction so far is from the GOP toad and mouthpiece, Matt Drudge...

Bitter beer face, Drudge. It kills me that Drudge keeps up the act that he's a "non-partisan" site, that he "goes where the story goes," yet that's a screen shot from his site this morning, bemoaning McClellan's book "snitching" on the Bush administration. Notice it doesn't say "Scott the Liar" - he's merely a "snitch." Draw your own conclusions.

A funny thing happened after a forward...

I had a pretty interesting e-mail exchange yesterday with a relative of mine, who shall remain nameless. It all stemmed from an irritating immigration e-mail forward I received. Of course, the originator of the e-mail urged everyone to sign the petition, and the 1000th one was to forward it on to the White House, where it no doubt ends up in Dubya's outhouse. Anyway, I'll have more on the great Wedge Issue of '08, immigration, in the coming days, but for now, I'll tell you I hit Reply All and sounded off about the absurdity of the forward, and how this administration has shown a willful disregard for what most Americans think. (More proof on that in a bit.) Anyway, most amusing of all was the response I received from said relative. Indulge me - it's pretty good. What follows is my relative's response, followed by my response.

First, my relative's missive:

YES I do sincerely believe our elected Republican Representatives do care what we think. I can find no creditable documentation that 2/3 of Americans believing we should be out of Iraq. No doubt more incorrect left wing radical statistics to try and make a point and spew more venom and trite [sic] innuendoes about [sic] out duly elected officials. [I let him have the "elected" part of that phrase without comment, for now.] Having spent over three years in the military I learned to reserve my opinions and not second guess the military leadership of this great nation. God bless George Bush and Vice President [sic] Chaney, without them we could be learning a new language and religion now.

[signed]

PS: I have received an answer to every e-mail I have sent to the White House! So much for that BS.

A beauty, eh? Well, I wasn't going to take an e-mail like that without responding. Note that my additional comments that were not included in my e-mail to said relative are in [brackets]. Here goes:

And I thought this was going to be a dull Friday night! Congratulations - some of your comments are making the blog - I found them that amusing.

[Snip...]

When you say "Republican Representatives," speak for yourself - I'm proud to say I live in a state that dispatched of the insipidly asinine Rick Santorum from the U.S. Senate, and we now have a Democratic Senator in Bob Casey, Jr. and a Republican Senator, Arlen Specter, who's a liberal Senator by just about anyone's definition. And at least I live in Pa.'s First District - which has had the common sense to send a Democrat to the House, too. You wouldn't happen to live in the district that sent Katherine Harris to the House, would you? [Okay, I'm revealing a little here - this relative lives in Florida.] That would be too perfect. Cruella de Vil really distinguished herself in the House, didn't she?

[By the way, in case any of you have forgotten, Harris was Florida's Secretary of State in 2000, while simultaneously serving as the Bush campaign's Florida Chairperson - an outrageous conflict of interest. She went on to certify the Florida vote, which helped pave the way for the mess we are in now. She also ran for the U.S. Senate in '06 and got the stuffing kicked out of her, partly for statements like this:

"We have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Is there any end to her stupidity?]

Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic Nominee for president every year since 1988, when Bush carried the state in his disgraceful campaign against Michael Dukakis. And I'll be campaigning like hell this fall, regardless of who gets the Democratic Party's nomination.

As far as finding "credible documentation" about America wanting to be out of Iraq, well, you aren't going to find it on Fox News - try changing the channel and getting some non-State TV news. Leading up to the last election, public opinion polls far and wide consistently had over 60% of Americans wanting us out of Iraq, NOW. Last I heard, it was in the high fifties, no doubt as a result of the Bush administration's ongoing PR effort to "sell" this war. As far as if Americans think the war is a "mistake," as of two weeks ago, that number was at 63%. Hey, don't take my word for it, take Gallup's word for it - a right-wing leaning organization that knows a helluva lot more about polls than either of us ever will. Here's the latest I could find - copy/paste this link [Here's the video so you can watch it here]:

As for this administration paying attention to what the American public thinks, take a look at the two short videos I've attached. (And no, I'm not holding my breath that you will) - it's Dick being the dickish Dick we've all grown to know and "love" - expressing his contempt for the American people when asked about the Iraq War. Pretty enlightening and tragic.

[Here are the two videos I attached to the e-mail - a not-so-pleasant walk down memory lane from a few months ago, when Dick Cheney had some pretty outrageous things to say regarding our troops in the field, American public opinion, and the 4000th American death in Iraq. They serve as an excellent barometer of how this administration Supports the Troops. ...]

[This certainly starts out good enough, but it quickly denigrates into Cheney's filibustering about how great the troops are. Too bad they aren't treated that way. However, as the interview winds on, Cheney doesn't disappoint - turning into the smug SOB most of us know him to be. They volunteered. I'll be the first to say I recognize that the men and women in our military need to follow orders to have an effective military - I get that. But this just speaks to the callousness, cold-heartedness, detachment and willful disregard that this administration has treated our troops, both in the field and after they return home. The whole Support the Troops slogan has been beaten to death, so I won't do it much more here, other than to say that usually the people who scream it the loudest are the people doing the least to actually support them, and that includes a majority of the Republicans who are backing this war; Bush and Cheney top that list.

It's pretty amazing what hindsight can do to political debate. As bad of a campaign as John Kerry conducted in '04, he was right on a number of things about this war - there really was and is a "back-door draft," this administration has extended tours of duty from 12 to 15 months, has not provided the benefits to our soldiers that they deserve, has not provided our troops with the equipment they need in the field, along with a myriad of other outrages. This gets sickenly little press, Walter Reed Hospital aside (and that didn't last very long. Yet, somehow, Democrats are the ones who don't support the troops. I find that equal parts hilarious, outrageous and tragic.

One more thought - I find it breathtaking that Cheney brings up Afghanistan in this interview, and how abandoning that country set up a haven for Al-Qaeda (following the Soviets' withdraw from Afghanistan, when we abandoned Al-Qaeda after they no longer suited our proposes - defeating the Soviet invasion). Hmm, I wonder why he doesn't take responsibility for that tremendous blunder? After all, he was Secretary of Defense from March 1989 through the end of Bush Sr.'s administration. Once again, Cheney must think the American people are that stupid, and that we know nothing of history. We're not the stupid ones, Dick.

Cheney goes on to ask his interlocutor what the alternative should be to extending tours of duty. I dunno, Mr. Vice President, how about a draft? This administration won't even consider a draft, because Bush and Cheney know that public support for this war (what's left of it) would vanish in a nanosecond. Instead, they just keep Stop Lossing and extending tours of duty with the troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and the troops are powerless to do anything about it. Christ, I wish I could interview Cheney.]

[You see? Right away with the attitude? That's Cheney's response - "So?" when asked about American opinion polls saying we should get out of Iraq. I find it entertaining that Bush and Cheney will endlessly pimp a poll when it's in favor of what they're doing, but the minute the winds of public opinion are blowing in their faces, then opinion polls don't mean diddly. You can't have it both ways, guys.]

I find your undying devotion to Cheney and Bush ironic in that these two right-wing chicken hawks did all they could to get out of serving during the Vietnam War. Two pussies with itchy trigger fingers - quick to go to war, and also quick to label people as traitors who don't agree with their rush-to-war strategy, but who refused to serve when offered the chance to serve themselves. Maybe if these two dolts had spent any time in combat when their country was drafting the non-privileged, they would know the true cost of war in lives and blood, and they wouldn't be so quick to drop bombs on innocent people.

This line had me up out of my chair, laughing, and saying to my wife in the other room, "You've got to hear THIS!"...

"God bless George Bush and Vice President [sic] Chaney, without them we could be learning a new language and religion now."

Really? Wow, you're really drank the propaganda Kool-Aid, haven't you? John Kerry was right - bin Laden really is "Osama bin Forgotten." Thank GOD we got rid of Saddam though, eh? This administration is one of the biggest frauds ever endured by the American people. We'd be learning a new language and religion by now? This is the Hyperbole Police - pull over! I must have missed the Islamic invasion of America, but I guess we'll truly be conquered if that Muslim wins the presidency, huh?

I find your comments about our military quite interesting - it's a perspective I'll never have - I've never had to fight for my freedom, and I'm thankful for that more than you'll ever know. But, I vehemently disagree regarding your comments regarding our military leadership. This great country was set up in such a way that our military leaders are answerable to our civilian elected officials, not the other way around. (Of course, in the case of Bush and Cheney, I use the word "elected" pretty loosely.) I'm sick to death of people crucifying politicians who have the temerity to question General Petraeus and others for our course of action in Iraq. Traditionally, the president, with the help of his advisers, dictate military policy in this country. But, not during this administration - we openly defer to the generals on the ground, and this is a tragic mistake. We rely on their assessments of the military situation, and every time, it's guaranteed that they will paint a rosy picture for the president and Congress. In essence, it's a set-up for failure. What general is going to go before the cameras and say, "Look, what I've been doing on such-and-such a battlefield is an abject failure - bring those boys home." Ain't happenin', captain. And you know what? Before the war began, the generals didn't know squat - our no-show National Guard president and his cabal of morons did - when General Eric Shinseki told the administration that it needed about 100,000 more troops for the invasion, they replaced him. But, Bush, Cheney and Rummy knew more than the generals did when it suited their proposes. Now that no general will ever say, "We're failing on the battle field," Bush and his morons defer to the generals.

General Westmoreland during the Vietnam War was the exact same way - we were "just around the corner" - victory was just a hundred thousand troops away. Over 58,000 dead Americans, and for what? NO, they didn't die in vain - any American who answers his country's call never, ever dies or serves in vain, but in the end, what did we accomplish in Vietnam? [Heaven forbid you don't write or say that qualifier whenever discussing the military - if you don't - you hate your country, you're unpatriotic, you don't support the troops, you should pack up and leave, and blah, blah, blah.] And, by the way, Democrats share a great deal more of that blame for that war than Republicans do - 300 years from now, President Johnson's legacy will be stained by the blood of Vietnam. Nixon can and should take some blame, too, but LBJ started us down the tragic path.

Were it not for civilian restraint, we would have used nuclear weapons during the Korean War, and we would have had a nuclear exchange with the Soviets in the early 1960s. I shudder to think what would have happened had the press and our elected officials had the same, tragic, slavish devotion to our military leaders back then they all seem to have today.

Generals aren't always wrong, though - Colin Powell, during the '91 Gulf War, reasoned that we should not invade and occupy Iraq - that it would have turned into a bloody, costly occupation. Too bad his voice wasn't heard in this administration.

One more point - this administration has NOT given our troops the tools on the ground in Iraq, and anyone who hasn't been living in a cave, or who hasn't had his or her head in the ideological sand knows this. From a lack of body armor and not providing armored Humvees in Iraq, to short changing the vets when they come home, to not giving them adequate pay raises while on active duty to not giving them proper health care, this administration has done just about everything BUT Support the Troops. What an empty, meaningless slogan. Sort of like Mission Accomplished, when Our National Embarrassment landed on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in his Halloween costume, with that smug smirk on his face.

Wake up and smell the outrage.

I could go on and on, but what's the point? My goal is not to educate you, nor is it to persuade you - I've got a better shot at becoming president myself. But what I won't do is sit idly by while my country that I love so much kills innocents in my stead, destroys a country halfway around the world, and dumps trillions of taxpayer money into a country that no one would give two craps about were it not for all of the oil underneath its sands.

Oh yea, and thanks for all the war debt, Mr. President. This war you're seemingly so blindly devoted to is going to be paid off on the backs of the middle class for decades to come, long after you're gone (and I hope that's a long time from now) - NOT by you, and not by Bush. God willing, if I live a long life, I'm going to suffer along with all Americans as we endure a crippled government that's hampered by war debt, declining prestige and credibility around the world, and a hopelessly politicized federal government, thanks in large part to Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove. You said something about having to learn a new language? Well, we might have to do just that - Chinese. After all, the Chinese are financing this war. Only a jackass like Bush would cut taxes and start a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Wow, some businessman he is. It really makes me wonder about Harvard - that university gave this guy an MBA. Then again, or first MBA president is also our first DUI president. Maybe he was knee deep in scotch and cocaine when making these decisions about going to war in Iraq. And what's McCain's solution? Make the tax cuts permanent! Cut the corporate tax rate! [And end the Estate Tax, which really gets me going - more on that very soon, too.] Just what we need, more debt. I weep for the future. It's no wonder Vandra and I aren't having children - I firmly believe that bringing children into this world right now is borderline criminal. And before you start trotting out the "pinko commie liberal" label, or some other GOP doggerel, stick it. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

What's even more tragic is what could happen to me for sending this e-mail. I would be held as an enemy combatant in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to council or without being told what the charges are against me. That's thanks to the policies of this administration. How... American.

###

I share this e-mail not to attack or embarrass a relative (after all, I didn't name him - only my family will know who I'm talking about), but to make a point - this is the kind of blind devotion and hostility that moderates and progressives are up against. After all that's happened during these past 7+ years, there are still people who proudly have "Bush/Cheney '04" bumper stickers on their cars, which never ceases to amaze me. It does tell me that this election won't be won easily, and that progressives are going to have to fight tooth and nail for every vote.

Oh, and those sheeple with those Bush stickers still on their cars? As I pass them, I smile and wave with all my fingers. Once I get past them, they no doubt see the anti-Bush love on my car. They can kiss my rear bumper.

The bottom line is that there ought to be a saying for e-mail forwards, just like there is for drinking alcohol. You no doubt have heard Impairment starts with the first drink. How about Stupidity starts with the first forward? Okay, I guess I have to work on it. I'll gladly take any suggestions.

Oh, and you must pass this on to 10 people, or something realllllly bad will happen to you in 10 minutes.

Updated: W on the National Guard in '88

Update: The more I think about this video clip, the angrier I get. You know what the video above reminds me of? A mouthy person who narrowly avoids a severe butt whipping at the hands of someone much larger and meaner when his friends step between them. Once the big, bad man is out of the room, the lucky, mouth person boasts, "It's a good thing you stopped that guy, or I really would have beat his ass."

What balls Bush has - a ticket to the National Guard during the Vietnam conflict was a ticket to stay home and not have to fight. If Bush were that eager to fight and serve his country in a time of war, he very easily could have gone off to Vietnam and flew jets. But Bush was the fortunate beneficiary of his daddy's connections to jump over thousands of others on the list to get a plum assignment in the Texas Air National Guard. This is the textbook behavior of a chicken hawk Republican. For similar behavior, see Wolfowitz, Paul or Cheney, Dick.

The fact that Gore and Kerry didn't bludgeon Bush with this video clip (especially Kerry) during their respective campaigns against our National Embarrassment should be an embarrassment to the people who ran those campaigns.

Maybe I should be a little more forgiving about Bush's comments during this interview 19 years ago - after all, Dubya was still on the sauce back then, and maybe even the booger sugar.

**

Original Post: This sure was good for a laugh this morning before I get to the serious stuff - take a look at this video of an interview between Connie Chung and Dubya on the floor of the 1988 Republican National Convention. I know, I know - it's ancient history, but talk about hubris and arrogance - it's all on full display here. I wonder where this video was in 2000, Mr. Gore?

My favorite parts:

Bush: "I flew fighters in the Texas Air National Guard for which I’m very proud."

[Snip]

They should have probably called up the National Guard in those days. Maybe we would have done better in Vietnam.

Well, the man's got balls, without a doubt.

I also got a kick out of Chung's question about people making phone calls for Quayle, and if anyone had ever done that for him. Notice Bush's response: "I don't think so." What exactly does that mean? Translation: I don't want to answer.

Just another example of blatant lies that he got away with in 2000, and 2004. Or, put this another way - if Karl Rove were working for Al Gore in 2000, imagine for a nanosecond what Rove would have done with that video?

Bush approval at record low

Bush's approval rating is now at at all-time low for his presidency - 29 percent, which now equals his father's lowest approval rating. In Bush's race to the bottom, he doesn't have that much more to go to equal the lowest approval rating during a modern presidency - President Truman's 22 percent in 1952.

Of course, I doubt Bush will get best Truman, however; surely there are still at least 23 percent of fanatical Republicans in this country who will believe whatever Bush tells them. But, who knows - maybe Bush will go too far for at even least a portion of them.

I'd be remiss to not mention the approval rating of the Democratically led Congress, which is even lower than Bush's. Right now, in the eyes of the public, Congress is doing even worse than the president. Public satisfaction with the job lawmakers are doing has fallen 11 points since May, to 24 percent, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

Democrats were given control of Congress to reign in the Bush administration and to end the war. So far, they've done neither. And it's looking increasingly apparent that's not going to change anytime soon.

These ratings prove one thing - Americans are becoming increasingly disenchanted with our government, on both sides of the aisle.

As Crooks & Liars so sagely put it this morning, "It is incumbent upon all of us to make very clear that their approval reading has to do with their lack of action, not fear of it." [Emphasis Mine]

Perfectly said. Most people who I talk to who are unhappy with Congress, and that's just about everybody, say the biggest problem people have with this Congress is that Congressional Democrats are afraid to do anything serious about this administration, for fear that they will be labeled as causing trouble and widening divisions. That's merely Karl Rove's spin machine talking. Sure, Rove and Co. will paint Congressional Democrats with that brush if serious chargers were brought against Dick and Bush, but so what?

Rove's machinations have surly worked beyond his wildest dreams - all he has to do is jump toward the Democrats just a little, and they all jump, just like the skinny, feeble kid on the playground will jump when the bully takes one step toward him. Just unbelievable. I'm working on a separate piece about impeachment that I'll have later tonight or tomorrow.

Top chart via Open Left

O'Reilly & Novak - racing toward the bottom

Two quotes caught my eye yesterday as I was scanning my usual Websites. I've already posted a Quote of the Week, but these two whoppers are worth noting.

Bill O'Reilly and Robert Novak are soulless on a good day, but I always get a special sort of joy when they show their true colors.

Bill O'Reilly, when discussing his latest fetish, Rosie O'Donnell, had this to say:

Never in the history of American television has one performer alienated so many people.

I couldn't stop laughing when I read he said that. Bill O'Reilly said that. I feel very sad for him.

Robert Novak, of Valerie Plame-fame, classlessly had this to say about Al Gore:

He enjoys being rich... he enjoys being an Oscar-winner... and I think he enjoys being fat, too.

I'm encouraged that Novak isn't waiting until Gore announces his candidacy for president (if he does) before attacking him, year 2000 style. Rather impressive, actually.

If I can psychoanalyze for a nanosecond, I'd say the early Gore attacks are a pretty good indication of how desperate the Right is about the GOP's chances to retain the White House in 2008. Maybe Karl Rove can feed Novak more people whose careers need ruining. So far, no luck, but there's still plenty of time before the '08 election.

And since Novak chooses to go into the gutter, I will for a second as well. Since he likes poking fun at Gore's midsection, he may want to put down the Twinkies himself.

Choosing who's the worst between these two is like choosing between food poisoning and a flaming case of hemorrhoids.

Some Sunday comics, a bit late

So, Toyota is now the global king. The only amazing thing is that it took so long. I sure hope GM can turn it around, but the company is hamstrung by the astronomical costs of its pension and medical care costs.

I'll discuss the Pat Tillman fiasco in a separate post, but in short, it's one of the most disgraceful chapters in U.S. military history. At this point, I can't say I'm surprised, though - nothing from this administration surprises me anymore. Aside from Tillman's death, the most tragic thing about the whole incident is that no one will be held responsible for it. I'm not even talking so much about the friendly fire, which is a tragedy, but the cover-up and the lying by the U.S. government to the Tillman family. However, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, it's unlikely that anyone within the highest reaches of the Pentagon or the Bush administration will be held responsible.

The $400 John Edwards haircut is an embarrassment to him and his campaign, but the press coverage about this whole thing has been nothing short of amazing.

I'm not defending it - it's inexcusable. Anyone who was going to donate money to his campaign will probably be thinking twice. Had he paid for it himself, it would not have been disclosed. What was Edwards thinking? The answer is, he wasn't, because if he was, he would not have put this on the campaign books. You know what, though? Each and every campaign, and candidate, has these skeletons in his or her closet.

Anyone catch the stories about Rudy Giuliani and all of this rock-star like demands when he makes a campaign appearance? You probably didn't, because it got virtually no mainstream media coverage.

In addition to his $100,000 speaking fee, during his private speaking tours, he requires to be shuttled to and from speaking events in a Gulfstream IV private jet. You can read more about his demands Here and at the Smoking Gun, which obtained a copy of a Giuliani contract. Evidently, Oklahoma State released one of his contracts, sick of his unusually high demands.

Anyone want to argue that he's not using any campaign cash improperly? C'mon, they all are, without question. I have a hard time believing that a guy like Rudy, who's used to first-class treatment in every way, is all of a sudden going to be flying commercial.

During the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that then-candidate George W. Bush spent over $100 a minute.

Or, how about John McCain's all-expenses-paid trip to Iraq, so he could try and end his embarrassment stemming from his disastrous appearance on CNN just days before, where he blithely chided Wolf Blitzer for not knowing the facts on Iraq.

Again, I'm not saying that Edwards' behavior should be excused. It shouldn't. He won't get a dime out of me, even if he becomes the nominee. But, my point is all of the presidential candidates undoubtedly have lavish expenses. That doesn't make it right, either, but to single out Edwards is laughable.

You have to be able to read Spanish to know where this cartoon is coming from, and this one is right on. (It reads, "Why all the violence?")

I'm happy that finally, someone is actually going to take the time to examine all of this actions in a legal way. (Of course we know his work isn't always respectful, but that doesn't make it illegal. But, the likelihood that he did something illegal is all but certain, in my mind.)

Boris Yeltsin will be remembered as the first democratically elected president in Russian history. He probably was the right man at the right time. Like all leaders, he had his flaws, but, unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, who wanted to reform the communist party, Yeltsin wanted it abolished. Yeltsin took Russia toward democracy, and Vladimir Putin is taking Russia away from it.

Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself, Part II.

How many people thought that Sheryl Crow was actually serious in suggesting we should all wipe with one sheet of toilet paper? Many in the mainstream media did. I don't know I'd want to shake her hand without a latex glove on, but I took it as the joke it was when it first starting making the rounds of the MSM.

Yep, this is about right. I find it absurd and preposterous that five Catholic men on the Supreme Court are imposing their beliefs on every woman in America. What's more, if my wife's life is in danger if she were to become pregnant, she can't have an abortion after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Or, if the baby is afflicted with a certain fatal birth defect or disorder, the pregnancy can't be ended. That's how I interpret it, and it sickens me.

Oh, and Partial-Birth Abortion is a euphemism coined by the Pro-Life movement - it's a non-medical term for Intact Dilation and Extraction.

The Supreme Court's decision sickens me and the pic at right illustrates exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court and its horrific decision. I can't think of a better reason to vote Democrat in 2008 - Roe v. Wade has never been more in jeopardy than it is right now, along with many other civil liberties and rights with the George W. Bush-stocked Supreme Court.

What's more, people should look into exactly what the procedure is, and more importantly, how often it is (was) used. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the procedure has had a very low rate of usage, representing 0.17 percent (2,232 of 1,313,000 abortions) of all abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000.

Check out Clippy's cinematic debut

I really got a kick out of this - Clippy, of MS Office fame, who gets on my nerves most of the time, makes his movie debut in this Karl Rove spoof.

All kidding aside, Rove's involvement in this e-mail scandal is more than serious, and this scandal bears watching. In my opinion, Rove's deleted e-mails are anything but an accident, but that's the partisan in me talking.

Check out Rove in the '72 Nixon campaign

I found this on the Internets today - it's footage of a special report on President Nixon's 1972 reelection effort by Dan Rather of CBS News.

It's pretty creepy to see Karl Rove at his 22-year-old dorky best, working for the Nixon campaign. Considering what Nixon and his campaign cronies became known for, it's not difficult to surmise where the smarmy Rove learned his trade.

Of course, we all now know about Watergate, but it's still just a little bizarre to hear John Mitchell, the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), Jeb McGruder, etc. on tape before it all came crashing down. I guess it's a bit stranger for me, because I didn't live through it. (Technically I did, but I was much too young to remember.)

It's one of the reasons I find the Nixon administration so fascinating - its tentacles still reach deep into our government, and Karl Rove is just one example.

Even Henry Kissinger, the former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State from the Nixon and Ford administrations, still makes news; he recently stated publicly that the War in Iraq is unwinnable. It looks like the sage, Pulitzer-Prize winning war criminal may have finally wised up. He reportedly meets every other month with President Bush and every month with Dick Cheney.

If that's the case, Kissinger needs to shout a little louder, because both men don't seem to be listening.

Rove feels the wrath, sort of

Karl Rove, America's Rasputin, was the target of a protest outside of American University last night, according to a local Washington, D.C. TV station. There were reportedly 12-15 students waiting outside after Rove spoke to a group of College Republicans. Not exactly a mob of people, but perhaps enough to give him pause before he went to bed last night.

You really can't see much, it's mostly hearing the action. The picture's horrible, but I'm smiling at what it must have been like. Evidently, some people threw stuff at Rove, which I think is childish, stupid and I'm quite certain illegal. But, that aside, it's about time he starts paying the price for some of the president's policies, many of which he has profoundly influenced.

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post

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.

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.