Finally an open thread

Busy day. Read More......

Bork borks Harriet

What other word is there to describe a man whose main premise for opposing Harriet is that the US Supreme Court, with 7 Republican appointees to 2 Democrats, is "left-leaning."

Here's a wacky thought. Maybe today's "conservatives" are so far out of the mainstream of American thought that even their own court appointees think they're nuts. That doesn't make those justices "liberal," it makes Bork, and the religious right horse he rode in on, fringe freaks.

I hate these people. Read More......

New episode of DemsTV is up

Be there or be square. Read More......

Chertoff says FEMA, not state and local govts in Louisiana, to blame for Katrina mess

Well, well, well. Another Republican conspiracy theory shot to hell. For the past month the Bushies and their cronies on the right have been peddling the lie that the Katrina mess was really the fault of the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana.

Well, now the head of the Dept of Homeland Security, Bush's boy, says it was the feds who screwed up, not the local governments.

Uh oh.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's lack of planning, not the failures of state and local officials, was to blame for much of what went wrong with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told member of Congress today.

The assessment by the most senior administration official to answer legislators' questions since the hurricane struck in late August contrasted sharply with testimony offered earlier by former FEMA Director Michael Brown. Brown had blamed the "dysfunction" of Louisiana state and local officials for the problems that hobbled the relief effort.

"From my own experience, I don't endorse those views," Chertoff said.

He told lawmakers that he found the governors and mayors of the region to be responsive as the crisis unfolded.

Read More......

US soldiers allegedly burn Taliban bodies then use footage for propaganda

What else is there to say?

The Geneva Conventions are now "quaint." Our soldiers trade photos of war dead for porn and the Bush administration does NOTHING about it. And now we have video alleging to be US soldiers yet again violating the rules of war.

As John McCain said just the other day, I wouldn't want to be the next US soldier captured by the enemy.

We treat their dead like toys and we expect them to treat ours with dignity. The Bush administration, by allowing this kid of inhuman crap to continue, has put the lives of every American soldier at risk.

And by the way, how's that fourth year without body armor going for you guys over there? Still happy you voted Republican? Read More......

Delay's arrest warrant is online!

God bless Nancy Pelosi for posting this.

Read More......

It's Fundraising Week! Please make a donation to AMERICAblog (if you can)

You can contribute at the top of the page via one of two ways. By popular demand, you can now make a one-time donation OR a recurring monthly donation (i.e., enter how much you want to give each month and you will automatically be charged for that amount each month).

Now, down to business. I've decided that, like many of the other blogs, I'll institute a one-week-a-month fundraising-a-thon. The rest of the time I'll leave you alone, but during that week, I get to beg for contributions.

Why should you contribute?

1. Consider the blog a newspaper or magazine. You'd pay for those without missing a beat, why not do the same for your favorite blogs?

2. Consider the blog an advocacy organization, like your favorite gay rights group, civil rights org, liberal non-profit, etc. We do the same activism they do, some might argue we do it a lot better, and they get millions to the campaigns we do for free.

3. More generally, if you like what we do, help us do it. I do a lot more than just write on the blog. I do advocacy on a variety of issues, help out on local campaigns when I can (like in Maine this past weekend), do TV punditry on progressive causes, etc. If you like the work I do across the board, help me do more of it (please).

Why do we need contributions?

1. This is now my full-time job, which means my salary comes pretty much exclusively from this blog rather than the consulting business I've mostly given up in order to do AMERICAblog.

2. We are about to move and upgrade the blog to a new server, and that is going to cost us thirty to forty thousand dollars over the next year. (And those of you who think it won't cost that, you don't know the details of how much traffic we're getting. We used up 500 gigs of bandwidth just for those war-for-porn photos a few weeks ago. I have a proposal put together by an expert I know and trust, we've already gotten bids from vendors, this is what it's going to cost.)

Some more background on why we're upgrading the blog:

As I mentioned the other day, we hit our server limit with Blogger - the blog has simply gotten too big for the space they offer. It's not Blogger's fault, they're just not built for really big blogs. What that means is that I've had to delete old files on the server - meaning, pretty much every upload (orchids photos, sound files, documents, etc.) that I've posted to the blog between its launch and June of this year has been deleted to make room for "new" posts to the blog. I estimate in a few weeks to a month or so we'll have hit our Blogger server limit for good (all the old uploads will be deleted), and that will mean we'll have to delete our archives in order to keep the blog running. I don't plan on letting that happen.

We have a detailed plan for moving the blog to a dedicated server and redoing the entire blog itself with LOTS of new features. But that will cost good money - we'll be paying around $1500/month in Internet bandwidth alone (on Blogger, bandwidth is free). But if we don't want the blog to grind to a halt in short order, we have no choice but to move ahead and assume the cost. I'm talking to some big donors about helping the blog out overall, but no cash is yet forthcoming.

As an aside, I know some of you have offered "free" deals to help us out. I appreciate that, but this blog is now a serious entity and we need to treat it as such. I'd rather avoid patching together free things here and there at the expense of making a product that works and can be scaled up to something even bigger and better as we grow - that was the problem we've had with Blogger, going with "the free" rather than "the best." We need to move AMERICAblog over to the best tech solution we can get, and that will take serious money.

Ok, enough of that. As always, the blog will remain free, so you don't have to give anything. And, as I've noted before, please do NOT give if you're struggling to make ends meet. That's very kind, but seriously, save your money until you can truly afford to give.

Ok, that's it for now. Thanks as always, JOHN

PS Show a little love to your other favorite blogs too :-) Read More......

JimmyJeff GuckertGannon is writing a book

I'm breaking my "no more news about GuckertGannon" rule because this is just too damn funny. Yes, he now claims he's writing a book. Though you'll note in what he says that it sounds like he's "writing" a book, not that anyone has offered to pay him to write a book. Slight difference there.

And I'm training to be an astronaut.

From The Hotline:

Columnist/ex-Talon news reporter/man about town Jeff Gannon can soon add "author" to his list of titles.

"It is the book that so many have urged me to write for many months now," he says in an e-mail to us. But he wouldn't divulge any other details. The title "has yet to be determined."

"I'm working on the content right now," he says. "I'm sure there are people who had hoped I'd never write about this."

Whatever.

Anyway, maybe you guys can give JimmyJeff some help coming up with that title? Read More......

Another conservative hates Bush

Run away, run away!

This guy was with the Heritage Foundation, Ronald Reagan's White House and he worked for Daddy Bush too!

The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been. They were allies for a long time, to be sure, and conservatives used Bush just as he used them. But it now appears that they are headed for divorce. And as with all divorces, the ultimate cause was not the final incident, but the buildup of grievances over a long period that one day could no longer be overlooked, contained or smoothed over.

From the conservative point of view, the list of grievances is a long one, dating back to the first days of the Bush administration....

I could go on, but the point is that George W. Bush has never demonstrated any interest in shrinking the size of government. And on many occasions, he has increased government significantly. Yet if there is anything that defines conservatism in America, it is hostility to government expansion. The idea of big government conservatism, a term often used to describe Bush's philosophy, is a contradiction in terms.

Conservative intellectuals have known this for a long time, but looked the other way for various reasons. Some thought the war on terror trumped every other issue. If a few billion dollars had to be wasted to buy the votes needed to win the war, then so be it, many conservatives have argued. Others say that Bush never ran as a conservative in the first place, so there is no betrayal here, only a failure by conservatives to see what he has been all along.

Of course, this doesn't say much for the conservative movement. At best, conservatives were naive about Bush. At worst, they sold out much of what they claim to believe in.

The Miers nomination has led to some long-overdue soul-searching among conservative intellectuals. For many, the hope of finally turning around the judiciary was worth putting up with all the big government stuff. Thus, Bush's pick of a patently unqualified crony for a critical position on the Supreme Court was the final straw.

Read More......

Oh Harriet

She's pissing off Senators:

The contentious nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court hit another snag this afternoon when both the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee said her responses to senators' questions had thus far been unsatisfactory.

The committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said Ms. Miers should redo a questionnaire prepared by a bipartisan Senate panel because her initial responses had been insufficient on "many, many of the items."

The ranking Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, agreed that Ms. Miers's effort on the questionnaire had been "inadequate," adding that some of his Senate colleagues had found her responses "ranged from incomplete to insulting."

Add incompetent, too.

Think Progress has another update that further debunks the "Harriet is meticulous" talking po Read More......

Warrant issued for DeLay

Start putting up the "Wanted" posters on Capitol Hill. There's a suspect on the loose:

A Texas court issued a warrant Wednesday for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to appear for booking, where he is likely to face the fingerprinting and photo mug shot he had hoped to avoid.

Read More......

Did Bush lie to Fitzgerald?

From the Anonymous Liberal (what follows is his writing, though I agree totally):

...if Rove came clean in 2003, was that before or after Scott McClellan told the press that he was "not involved" in the leak?

More importantly, if this story is true, particularly the part about this disclosure taking place in 2003, there is a potentially far more serious problem. Let's go back to Murray Waas' Oct. 7 article in the National Journal, which was one of three articles that leaked the "Rove misled Bush" story. Waas wrote:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors . . .

In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview.

So if this new story is true--Rove "came clean" to Bush in 2003--and Waas is also right, doesn't that mean that Bush lied to Fitzgerald in June 2004?

Read More......

The White House needs to come clean now about when Rove told Bush he was the leaker

On October 7, 2003, Bush said the following:

I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.

The NY Daily News reports that sometime in 2003, Rove told Bush he was the leaker. It is now incumbent on the White House to tell us WHEN Rove told Bush. Because if Rove told Bush prior to October 7, 2003, then Bush actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the American people about a possible crime.

The White House press corps needs to demand a specific date. Read More......

Second Cheney aide reportedly turned, now helping prosecutor on PlameGate

From Raw Story:

A second aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with the special prosecutor's probe into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, those close to the investigation say.

Read More......

Mid-day Open Thread

There's a lot swirling around out there. Read More......

Bush knew Rove was the leaker in 2003. Lied in 2004 when he said he didn't know who leaked. Obstruction of Justice.

As a follow-on to Joe's post below, that article is a bombshell. And here's why:

From the NY Daily News:

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak....

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

So:

1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?

2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.

3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was, and clearly hadn't fire him.

From the White House's own Web site:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

4. Bush's comments border on obstruction of justice. He went public and made clear that he didn't know who the leaker was - he said he'd fire anyone found to have been involved, he hadn't yet fired Karl, so clearly he was saying that he had no evidence that Karl was involved. Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Karl was the guy. That's obstruction.

Now that we know that Bush knew Karl was the leaker in 2003, I want folks to scour the Web for any White House comments, from Bush, McClellan, Mehlman, anybody from 2004 until today who says that we don't have all the facts, that Karl is innocent, etc. Remember, the quotes must be dated 2004 or 2005. This is obstruction of justice territory - let's prove that they intentionally misled the public when they already knew that Karl was the leaker. Read More......

Bush was mad at Rove for being "clumsy" -- not for being a traitor

Okay, you have to read this article in the NY Daily News. One of Bush's "counselors" is off the record telling reporters that Bush was really, really pissed at Karl Rove over the Plame thing. But, and this is key, Bush wasn't mad because Rove leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent during the time of war. No, he was mad that his people did it so poorly:

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

So, it wasn't what they did that made Bush angry. It was how they did it.

Bush had no problem sacrificing national security for smear politics. That should make us all feel safer. Read More......

Open thread

Sorry about the delay in posting this morning. We are have MASSIVE server problems with blogger. We've long since exceeded our quota that Blogger gives us for server space - so now every time the blog makes an archive, it no longer permits us to post. Then I have to delete old things on the blog - which is rather counterproductive - in order to free up space so we can post again. We're working on a solution, but it isn't cheap - it's going to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

More on that later. Read More......

Mehlman to replace Rove???

The NY Times gives more evidence that indictments are coming, as John posted below. That's huge. And, the White House must think it's going to happen because they are rooting around for replacements for Rove:

Given the political ramifications attached to Mr. Fitzgerald's decisions, officials at the White House have begun discussing what would happen if Mr. Rove was indicted.

Among the names being discussed to take some of Mr. Rove's responsibilities should he have to step aside, an outside adviser to the White House said, are Dan Bartlett, currently Mr. Bush's counselor; Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Robert M. Kimmitt, the deputy Treasury secretary.

See, at the White House, they know what Rove did. They know if Fitzgerald gets the facts, Rove is busted. Read More......

Wilma is a Category 5

She exploded over night with winds up to 175 mph. Read More......

Iraq referendum results to be delayed

Friday is the earliest but the results might not even be released then either. Plenty of excuses but the main problem are the accusations of vote rigging. Just like the warm welcome that they would have for US troops when they invaded, I'm sure the Iraqi people will take it all in stride if the process was tampered with. Nothing to worry about, keep moving. Read More......

Pentagon promises, then cancels a lot later, $15k bonus for extending Guard duty

So, basically, all those men and women who offered to risk their lives AGAIN in Iraq for a $15,000 bonus are now screwed. Assuming they're still alive.

Absolutely amazing.

I'll say it again to all of you military men and women out there and your families, you voted Republican because? You won't hear any Republican blogs or many Republican politicians bitching about you getting screwed. Why is that?

Oh yeah, because you're not anything more to them than the backdrop of a press conference.

Bush wants them "dead or alive." And all this time I thought he meant the enemy. Read More......

Eine Kleine Nachthread

All the German I know is from Hogan's Heroes, Mozart titles, and flirting once with an East German soldier in Berlin in 1989.

Chat away. Read More......