Obama calls for combat troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008

Interesting. There was a time when even a senior senator simply introducing a bill would get no news coverage at all, since it happens every day, and introducing legsilation is a far cry from passing legislation. But when you hint at running for president, funny how the media covers you. And in this case, good.

UPDATE: The details of Obama's plan are here, on his Senate Web site. Read the rest of this post...

Ancient complex found near Stonehenge

Yeah, it's not political, but it's cool. Read the rest of this post...

FBI illegally collecting the Internet communications of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Americans

We must destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.....

[The Electronic Frontier Foundation's staff attorney Kevin] Bankston] said that the FBI is "collecting and apparently storing indefinitely the communications of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of innocent Americans in violation of the Wiretap Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution."

(Hat tip, Raw Story.) Read the rest of this post...

Religious right jail worker refuses to give rape victim morning after pill

The religous right is dangerous. They've taken over the Republican party, and now they're in the process of taking over the country, piece by piece. It's one thing for them to want to live some uber-pious life based on their (albeit warped) interpretation of the Bible, but it's quite another for them to force their view of the Bible down the throats of rape victims in public facilities.

Perhaps it's time we passed a federal law defending the rights of rape victims to the medicine of their choice.

More from Planned Parenthood. Read the rest of this post...

No matter how bonkers a conservative...

...there is always a place for him at the dinner table of the Republican party.

Outside of preaching to the thin and shrinking minority of barking mad, anti-reality lunatics, this guy is a few years out of date and out of touch. Attacking Hollywood and liberals and blaming them for everything is sooooooo 2003 but then again, his kind in the GOP have been stuck in a bizarre time warp.

D'Souza identifies more than 100 people and organizations as part of a "domestic insurgency" that is "working in tandem with [Osama] bin Laden to defeat Bush." Among them are such well-known terrorists as Sharon Stone, Henry Louis Gates and Cindy Sheehan.

Haven't we been here before?

In short, D'Souza believes that bin Laden, although his tactics were deplorable, was expressing a legitimate case against America, that notorious fount of pornography, homosexuality and women's liberation.

Isn't this falling into the Falwell 9/11 territory, which blames America for 9/11? Not to mention, a top conservative now thinks that Osama had a legitimate gripe with the US. Why does D'Souza hate Americans and America? Read the rest of this post...

Boehner makes a boner

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), is being slammed by conservatives for his new stance on the Iraq war.

First complaint: Boehner is embracing a resolution that would "micromanage" (their words)the war effort in Iraq by setting benchmarks, etc. Also, implicit in the GOP support for such a resolution is the acknowledgement that Bush is either unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to win.

Second complaint: Boehner's support for any resolution undercuts the assertions of Dick Cheney and General Petraeus (Bush's new puppet general in Iraq) that every resolution Congress offers (unless it's a resolution that says "we love Bush" and that's about it) undercuts our troops and emboldens the enemy. In a recent conservative radio interiew, Boehner was asked why his resolution doesn't undercut the troops and embolden the enemy, and he refused to answer, repeatedly.

The conservatives conclude that this is become Boehner either never considered whether his resolution would help the enemy and hurt the troops, or because Boehner doesn't care. I would posit a third, more likely explanation:

Boehner may be evil, but he's not stupid. He knows that all this talk of emboldening the terrorists and hurting the troops is a lie, though a useful one, that the administration (and lots of dictators through the ages) pulls out to silence dissent, even though they know it's not really true.

That's why Boehner didn't answer. He couldn't answer. Either he would be forced to agree with the ridiculous notion that he's actively trying to help Al Qaeda and kill our soldiers, or he'd have to admit that what Cheney and Petraeus said was an un-American lie meant to chill the 70% or so of the public that understandably is concerned about the quagmire in Iraq.

Like I said: evil, not stupid. Read the rest of this post...

Oh, well that explains it

UPDATE: Did Lugar plagiarize the Huffington Post? Just seems odd that the Huff Post wrote about the "draw play" analogy a week ago, and today it pops up in the Washington Post as Lugar's original idea.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on the Bush escalation plan in Iraq:

Some commentators have compared the Bush plan to a "Hail Mary" pass in football -- a desperate heave deep down the field by a losing team at the end of the game. Actually, a far better analogy for the Bush plan is a draw play on third down with 20 yards to go in the first quarter. The play does have a chance of working if everything goes perfectly, but it is more likely to gain a few yards and set up a punt on the next down, after which the game can be continued under more favorable circumstances.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

PS What exactly does Lugar mean that we're going to be "punting" soon in Iraq, and apparently with his approval? Short of a withdrawal, what else could he possibly mean?

Update from AJ: If Senator Lugar is going to rip off AMERICAblog by bashing the "Hail Mary" comparisons, he should at least give us credit. Although his analogy, too, is asinine: the escalation is not going to "gain a few yards," metaphorically speaking. More importantly, though, a draw play isn't likely to, y'know, kill people. The escalation will. Read the rest of this post...

Rahm: Bush is the decider and Cheney is the denier

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) on the House floor today:

Mr. Speaker, President Bush was recently asked about the differences between himself and Vice President Cheney. The President downplayed any distance, but the differences are clear. In defending his decision to escalate the war in Iraq, President Bush said 'I'm the Decision-Maker.' And recently, despite some of the most violent months in Iraq, Vice President Cheney said that the war had been a 'success.' So, the difference: Bush is the decider and Cheney is the denier.

And the result is a broken policy.

As today's Washington Post reports, the troops being sent to Iraq are going without adequate equipment. Once again, American troops are being sent into harms way on the cheap. As Yogi Berra said, 'It's Déjà vu all over again.'

Democrats and Republicans have supported every funding request made for the Iraq war - and we will continue to stand behind our troops. But we cannot and will not accept the failed policies of the past that left our troops without the equipment they need.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately it comes down to a simple question: Who's the decider and who's the denier?

Read the rest of this post...

Specter to Bush: You aren't the only decider (that was just the case when the GOP controlled Congress)

Oh, now Arlen Specter gets a spine. Today, he challenged Bush's self-designation as the decider:

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

After six years of having GOPers on the Hill, like Specter, roll over for Bush, it's no wonder he thinks he's the sole decider. The GOP-led Congress was a rubber stamp for Bush. Never a challenge. Never a question.

Bush isn't the decider. But, it's not because Arlen Specter says it. Specter and his fellow Republicans had the chance to challenge Bush. They never did. The Democrats will. Read the rest of this post...

Another misleading story from the Associated Press

Another entry in the "do your job" category.

The Associated Press just published a story about a "massive spending bill" those wild tax and spend Democrats are about to debate, you know, since they just love to spend our money.

Only problem? While that's what the title and first paragraph of the story imply, that's not what the story is about. In fact, the story is about how the Democrats are finally going to pass the budget that the Republicans refused to pass LAST YEAR - the budget that already went into effect last October.

So, the reason the spending bill is "massive" is because it takes all the budget bills that the Republicans failed to pass last year and lumps them into one big bill. So, yes, strictly speaking, it's a "massive" bill (because it's one bill, instead of the 13 separate bills (or so) that Congress normally passes to deal with appropriations). But by reading the AP headline, and the first paragraph, you get the impression that the Dems are feeding into their "big spender" stereotype, when in fact, they're not.

I don't think AP did this on purpose in order to slam the Dems. But I do think they did this on purpose in order to have a sensational headline and first paragraph. And putting aside the merits of sensationalism, you don't do it when it ends up misleading, and that is what it's doing. Read the rest of this post...

2 in 5 US government scientists in survey faced political pressure to skew global warming findings

Better everyone die than Bush be proven wrong. Kind of a theme, isn't it. From AP:

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

Read the rest of this post...

Ari for Congress campaign slogan: I outed a CIA officer. An undercover CIA officer. Vote for me.

You may recall the reports from last December that Ari Fleischer was going to run for Congress in New York's 19th Congressional District. Yep, Ari is apparently planning to challenge John Hall who beat Sue Kelly last November. The right wingers were reporting that Ari was "the natural and best candidate." Okay.

Well, Ari's got a campaign slogan:

"I thought, 'Oh, my God. Did I play a role in somehow outing a CIA officer? . . . Did I just do something that I could be in big trouble for?' "

Okay, that won't be the slogan of Ari's campaign. But, if decides to run, that will become the theme of his campaign.

Vote for Ari. He outed an undercover CIA operative and made America less safe. Just like his boss. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

The Libby trial has been fascinating and disturbing on many levels. Ari Fleischer and Cathie Martin have re-confirmed that practically the entire Washington press corps had been leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative for partisan political reasons. This was back in 2003. Yet, that entire Washington press corps dutifully reported the repeated denials from the White House -- including those from Bush -- about the leak. And, this same press corps helped push the 2004 campaign spin that Bush and Cheney would keep us safe and were stronger on national security. And, they also reported on the White House outrage over other leaks that would hurt national security. No wonder the White House had such disdain for the media. They were playing the press all the time -- and the press let it happen.

The press corps should be ashamed. They enabled the Bush war machine, too. They were almost as bad as the Republicans on the Hill -- never asking questions, just doing what they were told. Pathetic.

Judy Miller is on the stand today.

And, we're getting closer to the Iraq war votes today. Keep an eye on the Senate. Read the rest of this post...

Blair allows 20 additional months of bigotry to church

That's a heck of an equality bill that provides the Catholic adoption agencies an additional 20 months to restrict gay couples from adopting. Who actually agreed to this nonsense? Read the rest of this post...

"An Inconvenient Truth" - it's part of the curriculum

While attending a family gathering this weekend in the Beaujolais my aunt proceeded to tell me about how my cousin Alice took her high school class to go see Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. My aunt, who is hardly a lefty and much more of a traditional center-right type from a pro-business family in France, was telling me what a great idea it was and how the students appreciated the event. She couldn't say enough good things about Al Gore and the movie and insisted that everyone should go to see the movie and think about what can be done about global warming. Wow, what a pleasant surprise to hear since the region is solidly mainstream, if not tilting to the right.

I know the rumblings are always there but every time I meet someone over here that has watched the movie, they immediately ask "will Al Gore run for President?" It is impressive to see the interest in the topic and how it comes up with everyone, across all backgrounds over here. What also stands out is that even after the scorched earth foreign policy of the Bush administration, there is still a strong desire for so many people who want to see the US regain its former self and be active within the world community and not a crazy on the international fringe. Those on the right who say everyone hates the US and wants a weak US are simply wrong. People want a return to cooperation, open dialogue and a sense of a global community because an issue such as global warming forces us all to work together, across borders and around the world. Sounds reasonable to me. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Put... the country... back. Read the rest of this post...