Daddy Dick must be proud of his Liz

Okay, I know it's been a long, LONG time, but I'm back for real this time. If you wouldn't mind indulging me, I'm going to skip past the part where I prostrate myself before the world, berating myself and begging for your forgiveness for taking so long to post. Ahem. Thanks.

Anyway, after a year of much-needed political change in America in 2009, it hasn't taken me long to get thoroughly angered at "the system," and that's WITH President Obama in power. My biggest peeve right now is the healthcare "debate" that's happening on Capitol Hill, but before I get to that, I must comment on a thoroughly detestable ad put out by Liz Cheney and her cohorts over at Keep America Safe (I'm not linking to it) a few weeks ago. In case you haven't seen it, here's the ad:

What a sickening display of faux patriotism. An indication of just how sickening could be heard on just about any news channel these past few weeks (except Faux News, but I don't consider propaganda for the RNC "news"). If you're a conservative, you know you've done something when the vile, contemptible and insipid Kenneth W. Starr (of Monica Lewinsky fame) is speaking out against you. (Starr was on NPR last week, of all places, speaking out against the ad, which I didn't understand, since NPR is nothing but a "lib-rul network.")

This is nothing more than fear mongering on the part of Repubes regarding how President Obama is fighting the War on Terrorism (I hate that term, but I'll use it here to illustrate a point). It's not a stretch to say that Obama has been much more effective at fighting terrorism than Dubya Bush ever was. Of course, you wouldn't know that from watching, listening or reading right-wing media (and you don't have to go very far to find it these days). It seems to me that we're killing or capturing more and more leaders of Al Qaeda on a daily basis than during the Bush years, and the right doesn't like it; and since they don't, we get a red herring like this bullshit ad.

A political commentator said this a month or so ago, and I can't remember who, so I apologize in advance, but it went something like this: Cheney and Co. keep harping about how Obama is making us less safe for a reason. They are staking out this position at rock bottom prices, and in the off chance that there is another attack on America, Cheney and the sheeple who believe anything he says (in addition to the RNC Network) will all claim, "See?!? We told you he was making us less safe! Obama is putting America in danger!!!" Hell, they probably already have the ads made up- all that's needed is another terrorist attack, and violà! - it will take minutes for these people to begin attacking Obama. If you think I'm accusing these people of rooting for another attack against America for political gain, you would be right.

It's amazing how GOPers, led by Rudy 9iu1ian1, re-write history on a moment's notice, too. Remember the underwear bomber from last Christmas? Toothy Rudy was on TV saying, with a straight face, that America wasn't attacked when George Bush was president. Really?

Getting back to the above ad, I find it laughable that this even got any traction. Our judicial system has a long and storied history of everyone having the right to the best defense possible, period. And it's also laughable to accuse lawyers of believing in the crimes their clients are alleged to have committed just because they are defending them.

As a post-script, here's Liz on the "O'Lielly Factor" defending her organization's ad (and I love how they both give each other a tongue bath at the beginning about "The Factor" - Puleeze).

Draw your own conclusions.

Christ, even blowhard Bill took issue with Cheney's view that the Obama Justice Department views terrorists in the same light as tax cheats, etc.

Another BIG problem I have with Cheney's view is this, and I'll write this one loud for the cheap seats: NOT ALL PEOPLE BEING HELD AT GITMO ARE GUILTY OF A CRIME! In fact, when you look at the stats on who has been released and how many, it's rather appalling that the right is continuing to stake out this position with regard to the GWOT. I don't have the figures right in front of me, but even a cursory research effort reveals that dozens and dozens of Gitmo detainees have been released (some during the Bush administration), many after years of incarceration, without ever being formally charged or tried. Sickening.

What's more, this is just another demonstration of how the right has contempt for history. John Adams, a true patriot and a Founding Father of our country (not to mention our first vice president and second president), defended British soldiers who were charged with murder in the Boston Massacre. He remarked later in life that it was one of the proudest moments of his career. But, let's not let history get in the way, right conservatives? After all, just last week Texas agreed to adopt history textbooks that contain no reference to Thomas Jefferson, another former president and Founding Father. Twenty years from now, I can't wait to see what Texas textbooks will say about President George W. Bush- he'll have probably "saved our Democracy" by invading Iraq, and "avenged 9-11, an attack that happened under President Clinton, by invading Afghanistan." Too funny.

Gonzo gets a stay

The Senate Judiciary Committee has wisely postponed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony, which was originally scheduled to begin today, until Thursday. Gonzo is now scheduled to begin giving testimony on Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

It was the obvious and smart thing to do, in light of yesterday's Virginia Tech Massacre. From what I've been reading, Gonzales needs all of the practice he can get. Word out of Washington a little over a week ago had him doing so bad in his rehearsals that an appearance on "a Sunday morning talk show" had to be cancelled.

I'm quite annoyed that the attorney general of the United States is taking up weeks at a time to "rehearse" for his appearance on Capitol Hill. Seriously, if you are planning on telling the truth, do you need weeks of preparation? I think not.

According to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Gonzo hasn't just be preparing, he's been cramming:

At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales’s performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers — including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan — about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his time line confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got "exasperated" with him, the source added. "He's not ready," Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales's public-affairs chief, told the A.G.'s top aides after the session was over, said the source.

Gonzo's testimony on the Hill is going to be huge. It's not a reach to conclude that his testimony will probably determine whether this investigation goes any higher up the ladder, and whether he keeps his job.

My predictions: barring a miracle by Gonzo, he's gone, and this investigation is going to go deeper and deeper. Whatever happens, I do hope that it doesn't turn into a Ken Starr-style witch hunt. I just want the truth to come out, whatever it is.

Gonzo is already probably fatally wounded as attorney general - I don't see how his Congressional testimony is going to clear up and make everyone forget his many examples of wild inconsistency.

Ed Gillespie is a name that some may remember - he was chairman of the Republican National Committee for a few years, and he also was an aggressive member of Bush's 2000 election team. He coached Bush's lawyers who appeared before the Supreme Court to argue Bush's side in Bush v. Gore, the disastrous decision that gave us the wonderful president that we've had to weather these past 6+ years. I'd argue that Bush v. Gore is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Picture from TMW

Theron to play Susan McDougal?

U.S. News & World Report is reporting that a movie about Susan McDougal is in the works, and Charlize Theron (below) will play the lead. Very cool - a great story that should be told, portrayed by an actress with sex appeal. Of course, Jay Leno made the joke that if this is the case, Bill Clinton will play himself. The blurb from U.S. News:

Susan McDougal, the bit player of the Clinton-era Whitewater scandal, is making a comeback. We hear that Hollywood producers are looking at making a story of her life. You remember her: She was the young woman once married to scandal figure Jim McDougal who went to jail for 18 months instead of testifying. Moviemakers like Paul Haggis of Oscar winners Crash and Million Dollar Baby were in Little Rock last week scouting locations, and word is that Charlize Theron is their McDougal choice.

I've had McDougal's book, Susan McDougal: The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk, for some time, but I'm yet to read it, so I'll have to put that on my extensive summer reading list. I've no doubt it's a great read. If you're interested in the book, it's now available on Amazon.com, in paper back for $5.99.

Before I even read the book, I'm going into it thinking that Susan McDougal was the victim of a political witch hunt by Whitewater Special Prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr. She wouldn't give Starr what he wanted - to smear the Clintons so she was convicted on four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater after she refused to answer questions on the witness stand.

She's got courage, moxie and verve, and if a movie is being made about her, she sure deserves it.

Tony Snowjob slips on a banana peel, suffers from a nasty case of amnesia

Tony Snowjob's divorce from reality is continuing apace. Take a look at this exchange a few days between Snow and CBS This Morning's Harry Smith:



Tony's got a short circuit, selective memory, or just outright denial. Let's take a look at what he had to say during the height of the Clinton impeachment craze, when Special Prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr issued subpoenas to just about everyone in the White House, including Clinton's top advisers, and Secret Service Agents (the latter of which was an unprecedented step.)...

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law."

Hmm. Double-standard police - pull your vehicle to the side of the road, Mr. Snow.

This is another example of people having selective memories. The Congressional Research Service tells a different story. (The CRS is the non-partisan research arm of Congress.) According to a 2002 CRS report, during President Clinton's eight years in office, 31 people from the White House testified under oath before Congress. You may have heard of some of them:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger...

Clinton Presidential Council Lloyd Cutler...

And John Podesta, President Clinton's fourth and final White House Chief of Staff.

As usual, Snow's credibility is melting under his feet.

It's funny how Tony Snow is so slow to learn from his mistakes, in particular his name calling.



Here, in response to some tough questioning, Snow calls NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory "partisan," hardly a compliment.



Snow later apologizes, but he's slow to learn his lesson. He should take the word partisan out of his vocabulary, because when he uses it, he only sounds like what he's complaining about - partisan. As a White House press secretary, he's supposed to be above that.

Considering his pedigree from Fox News, it's pretty unlikely Snow will change.

Blowhard Bill never runs out of gas

O'Lielly is at it again - he's now calling George Soros "the most dangerous man in America."

The sexual harasser is angry because Soros pays lots of his own cash to try to get Democrats elected. Seems to me that the "culture warrior" is also angry because Democrats now have their own Richard Mellon Scaife ~ that is, a man with deep pockets who isn't afraid to put his money where his political mouth is.

However, there's one big difference between Soros and Scaife - one has a soul, and the other, well, to call him soulless would be too kind.

Soros (right) has a bad hairdo, but is a self-made billionaire who knows what it's like to be persecuted, and have no money. (His family endured the Nazis in Hungary during World War II, and the Soviets afterward.) He became very wealthy by earning his money, not inheriting it. Yes, there have been some accusations of wrongdoing - he was convicted of insider trading in France, but he denies guilt and claims the information he knew was public knowledge.

Scaife (below) is another type of animal altogether. He's little more than a right-wing nut job with a fat checkbook. He inherited almost all of his wealth, and he's paid millions trying to defame and destroy those who differ with him politically, socially and philosophically. His funding of the Arkansas Project is the subject of many books, articles and even a few documentaries.

The best book about Scaife's b.s. is The Hunting of the President, an eye-opening page turner that is worth a read if you'd like to know how a billionaire with a hard on for Democrats will go to any lengths and will make up almost anything in an attempt to destroy someone.

Scaife's ties to Kenneth W. Starr are not well known, but they're not well-hidden, either. Starr was named the first dean of a new school on public policy funded by Scaife at Pepperdine University. When controversy arose over this appointment, Starr decided against taking the position. Of course, Pepperdine denied any link between Starr and Scaife. Ummm Hmmm. Once the controversy passed, Starr became dean of Pepperdine's School of Law in 2004.

Now you tell me, who is a more dangerous man in America - Scaife or Soros?

The biggest right-wing shill in America would be wise to rethink calling Soros "the most dangerous man in America" by looking inward toward his own twisted political party.

I've got my own nominee for the moniker Most Dangerous Man in America - how about Roger Ailes?