|
|
Thursday, May 19, 2005
|
|
| |
Good night, moon
Hey, irony is not dead! The
Republicans want strict constructionist judges... But they're tearing
up their own rules to get them!
- Lambert
[corrente]
9:29:43 PM 
|
|
Baucus’ Rebuttal: “This is the Way Democracy Ends”.
Sen. Max Baucus today offered the rhetorical antithesis to Sen.
Santorum’s crass reference to Adolph Hitler. Read it, pass it on to
friends. It is a powerful, jarring speech, one that expresses the
profound importance of the moment we’re experiencing now. Mr.
President, last week, on Wednesday, we evacuated the ...
[Think Progress]
9:25:55 PM
|
|
Meh. That's Not News..
1) The fix was in on Iraq and the Republicans lied about it.
2) Iraq is either a quagmire or a colony, and the Republicans lied
about that: American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave
a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to
the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government. ...
In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing
that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched
the total of 25...
[Paperwight's Fair Shot]
9:24:11 PM
|
|
Let's Be Clear, Politically Frist's Nuclear Option is Good For Dems.
When we discuss the Nuclear Option, the Media and some other folks, of
all political stripes, see the Dem position as somehow just typical
partisanship. I think nothing could be further from the truth. There
can be little doubt that the most favorable POLITICAL outcome for Dems
is for Frist's Nuclear Option to narrowly succeed - most ideal would be
Cheney casting the deciding vote. In a post from last week, I cited to a quote from Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Ms. Snowe, meanwhile, had a message for fellow Republicans: "Frankly," she said, "the
election of the president drew from Americans who describe themselves
as moderates, which is about 45 percent of Americans today. That's
something we overlook at our own peril." Indeed,
politically, I believe Sen. Snowe has got it exactly right. George Bush
ran as a moderate in 2000, and as a wartime President in 2004. The
Republicans have ALWAYS hidden their dependence on the Extreme Right.
But that dependence on the Extreme Right has now become total control
of the Republican Party by Dobson & Co. Smart Republicans
MUST know that Frist's Nuclear Option is, at the least, incredibly
reckless politically. Not for Frist of course, whose chance at the
Presidency lives or dies based on the result of this vote. But for the
Republican Party. Moderates do NOT support the Republican
Radical Right agenda, even when they vote Republican. But with Roe
protecting the right to choose and the courts generally blocking the
Extreme Right agenda as antithetical to Constitutional principles, this
has not been much of a concern for most moderate voters. But the
unmasking began with the Schiavo Tragedy. And is escalated, in a much
more permanent way, with Frist's Nuclear Option. Clearly, the Nuclear
Option would dramatically change the political agenda. The agenda of
the Extreme Right would become openly the agenda of the Republican
Party and will be central to every political race, This will benefit
Democrats everywhere. What I am saying, in a long winded
fashion, is this a position of principle for Democrats. We stand for
what is right, not for what best suits us politically on the question
of Frist's Nuclear Option. Update [2005-5-19 21:5:45 by Armando]: So why are Republicans going along with it you might ask? Simple answer - they fear Dobson & Co. It is that simple.
[Daily Kos]
9:21:33 PM
|
|
Iraq Update May 19.
Iraqi Oil Ministry official gunned down
Mourners grieve Thursday over the coffin of Mohammed Tahir al-Allaq, an
aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. ~ photo/AP CNN - An official
from Iraq's Oil Ministry was gunned down Thursday morning in western
Baghdad, police said. Gunmen killed Dr. Ali Hameed about 8 a.m.
(midnight EDT), police said. Also Thursday, Sayid Mohammed Al-Allaf --
an aide to Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani -- was gunned down in northeastern Baghdad's Sadr City
neighborhood, Iraqi police said. Zarqawi Reportedly Called for Shift in
Strategy Jeffrey Fleishman Related post on al-Zarqawi and possible
Syrian meetings here. ~ CTV.ca LATimes - Militant leader Abu Musab
Zarqawi met with heads of Iraqi insurgent groups in Syria a month ago
and called for a shift in strategy against Iraqi and American forces by
increasing suicide car bombings, a senior U.S. military official said
Wednesday. The official said that shortly after the meeting, held just
inside the Syrian border, insurgents unleashed dozens of car bombs
throughout Iraq as part of a wave of violence that in recent weeks has
killed more than 450 people. The official's comments on Zarqawi could
not be independently verified, and it was not known how U.S. forces
gleaned information about a clandestine insurgent meeting.
[The Agonist]
8:34:16 AM
|
|
Oh, yeah, we like the abuse (Downing Street)
Researching the Downing Street Memo is not good for your blood pressure. But let me show you something:
From the Chicago Tribune:
But
the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a
dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the
memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public
generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the
bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.
All
of this has contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a
memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war's
critics.
In the U.S., however the account has drawn only passing attention,
even in Washington, where the debate over prewar intelligence on Iraq
once dogged the White House. No weapons of mass destruction have been
found in Iraq, and Iraqi scientists have told U.S. inspectors that any
weapons Iraq did possess were destroyed years ago. A "dud". Wait, there's more: The fact that we were misled regarding WMD's is hardly news. The fact that the intelligence was flawed and probably invented to fit the situation isn't anything new either. So what's the big deal? And this is what the Atlanta Journal Constitution had to say (via Jeff Boatright): Mr. Parko,
I can assure you we are not a mouthpiece for government. It's not news that
Bush lead [sic] us to war based on lies. The administration said long ago that
there were no WMD and we reported that on the front page many times.
Angela Tuck" A recent Gallup Poll showed that 50% of the American public believe that President Bush "deliberately misled" them on Iraq and WMDs. See,
nobody cares because it's nothing new. Everyone knows Bush lied. The
media, the American public. Yeah, we know he broke the law by making us
bleed blood and money for an illegal war. We know that. So, like, actually reporting on it is, like, totally passe. If it ain't a lie about a blowjob, it just isn't worth harping on. I would like to quote from a member of Congress, just to put things into perspective: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be here today. I wish I could just ignore all of this and make it go away. But
I have a responsibility to answer a question today and that question
is: How will history judge our actions that we take today?I
believe that this Nation sits at a crossroad. One direction points to
the high road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant. This path relies on truth, justice, and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.Now,
the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start
making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This
is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us;
when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
Shall
we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter how
unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our
eyes to the potential law breaking, forgive and forget, move on, and
tear an unfixable hole in our legal system?
No man is above the
law and no man is below the law. That is the principle that we all hold
dear in this country. The President has many responsibilities and many
privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law.
The
American system of government is built on the proposition that the
President of the United States can be removed if he violates his oath
of office. This resolution simply starts that process of inquiry. Did
the President break the law? And if he did, does that lawbreaking
constitute an impeachable offense? Closing our eyes to
allegations of wrongdoing by voting `no,' or by limiting scope or time,
constitutes a breach of our responsibilities as Members of this House.
So let history judge us as having done our duty to uphold that sacred
rule of law.
Makes sense, doesn't
it? The President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, to not abuse
his power, since not even the President is above the law.
By the
way, the above-quoted flashback brought to you by Tom Delay, circa Oct.
8, 1998, in the debate authorizing a committee to bring up impeachment
charges against President Clinton. (sorry, no link, a Thomas search
expires). And so, we keep getting abused. Administration lies are
met with no resistance, so they keep piling them on. They got away with
launching a war and getting re-elected to boot; can you image the
powertrip they're on? Can you imagine how the President feels when he
looks in the mirror, Mr. Cowboy, Mr. Toughguy, beating the pulp out of
America on a daily basis and America just turns the other cheek and
says "Please, sir! Can I have some more!" The nation has taken the path of least resistence. It's easier to sit back and take the spin than, ugh, actually having to confront and challenge
it. It's easier to say "Yeah, he lied, so what?" and just not pay
attention to the flag-drapped coffins. It's easier for the media to be
a lap dog and gush over Laura's horse masturbation jokes than, oh, I
don't know, printing the full text of the Downing Street memo. So,
when history judges us, as Tom Delay said on the House floor in the
shadow of a stained blue dress...when history looks to the carnage, the
slow sapping of the American soul, what will be written? That our
America is ok with a President lying--about war, not sex. That our
America is ok with being misled--because we don't think we deserve any
better. And that our America was filled with cowardice, not courage, in
the face of systematic and horrific abuse. - Georgia
[akou: a blog by georgia]
8:33:10 AM
|
|
The LA Times Detonates Logic.
Yesterday, in an editorial entitled “Nuke it Already” the LA Times
argues in favor of the nuclear option: The filibuster, an arcane if
venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators
to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power
legitimately written into the Constitution. ...
[Think Progress]
8:30:12 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Michael Mussington.
Last update:
6/1/2005; 1:34:17 AM.
|
|
|
