GOP donor facing terrorism charges

From CBS. Read the rest of this post...

The men at the Concerned Women for America worry that bigots give homophobes a bad name

The religious right having another Fannie Dooley moment. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Orchid Blogging

Oncidium Sharry Baby

This is a great plant, and you can find them everywhere - Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, lots of places sell them. Gets a bit large, but the flowers smell like chocolate to many people - to me they smell like some kind of warm dessert just out of the oven, but not quite chocolate. The smell is strong enough to waft a good ten to twelve feet in my apartment (the scent is strongest when the plant is in good lighting, no scent at night). It's considered an easy plant, as orchids go, though I did kill one. Generally you just water it once it gets dry, and give it a lot of light. I have a second version of this plant, a little bit different, but still a Sharry Baby - it has 3 big spikes (a spike is a long stem that has the flower on the end, or many flowers in this guy's case), and one of the spikes is 3.5 feet long and still growing, it hasn't flowered yet - that one I'll photograph when it finally explodes. One spike can have dozens of flowers, and a well grown plant can 4 or more spikes in bloom at once. The plant needs a good deal of sunlight, year round, in order to flower, and flower well.

Enjoy. JOHN Read the rest of this post...

It's confirmed, McCain will blow off Iraq vote in Senate so he can campaign for president instead

All the other major candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, have changed their schedules in order to be in Washington for this important vote. McCain has chosen to go kiss babies instead since, after all, becoming president in the future is more important to John McCain than helping our troops at war in the present.

There's a pattern developing. McCain already missed the first important vote on Iraq back on February 5th. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney voted for Democrat Tsongas for president, then lied about it to Stephanopoulos

I think Romney may have finally nailed his coffin shut. This just in from ABC:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said today he voted for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George Bush.

The explanation came during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, which will air Sunday on "This Week."

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

But 12 years ago, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was giving a different explanation for his vote for Tsongas.

"Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state's 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton," the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on February 3, 1994.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Nothing changed, you're just drunk. Read the rest of this post...

Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 2/16/07

Another week, more preposterousness to report.

Ok, can we put aside the Bush junta-inspired mendacity eruptions (slightly different than Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions," in that they mendacity eruptions actually end lives) to try and ignite war in Iran with those shady forces who are responsible for only 8% of the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

I know this will give the good Reverend John Hagee the kind of stiffy most of us could only pull off after a quart of Viagara mixed with Hillbilly Heroin--or as it is now known in bar-speak, a Limbaugh with a Haggard twist--but for the rest of us, can we shout from the rooftops "Enough with the fraudulent war justifications!"

Haven't we all learned from the last public relations rollout for a war of choice? Well, not David Brooks. But he's dumber than lead paint on Lindsay Lohan, so what he gurgles up out of his craven esophagus is of no consequence.

Yet, for those of us living in the strange land of lucidity, can we please all get this very simple message out before we experience Neocon Debacle II: Electric Boogalo

1) Over 90% of of the attacks that are killing U.S soldiers in Iraq are SUNNI inspired. They are, like, a whole different group of people than the Shia, Mr. Bush. And supported by your three-minutes-in-the-closet friends and financial benefactors the Saudis.

2) 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

3) Bin Laden - yeah, Saudi not Iranian (and still at large, why is that?).

4) Say 'hi' to Bandar Bush for us.

5) Saudi Arabia, not Iran, was one of the three countries that recognized the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan--yeah that one.

6) Tell you brother to lay off the Thai hookers.

7) Saudi Arabia sought nuclear weapons, and may still be doing so.

So does all that compute Mr. Bush? Iran has some very bad men in their leadership, true. But they don't begin to compare to your friends, the Saudis. Not that you ever cared about going after the real enemy.

Oh, yeah, and it's "nuclear" moron.

For more on this and other stories, go to cliffschecter.com Read the rest of this post...

Iraq resolution passes House, disapproval of Bush "surge" now on record: 246-182

Here we go.

UPDATE: 17 Republicans voted in favor of the resolution disapproving of Bush's decision to send over 20,000 more US troops to Iraq. The total vote count is 246-182. Read the rest of this post...

USNews: Bush could sink the GOP in 2008

From your lips:

Recent polls indicate a dramatic shift of independent voters toward Democrats when pressed to take sides. That shift helped Democratic candidates win a majority in Congress in November.

But the swing could be so strong that many Republicans up for re-election in 2008 should be sweating profusely.

It is almost certain that a large number of U.S. troops will still be in Iraq next year. The presidential race gets in full swing early with caucuses and primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

Bush has ignored the voters' clear message sent three months ago. He could be poised to take his party down with him when he retires to Crawford, Texas, in 2009.

He's been warned.

Read the rest of this post...

University of Illinois drops its mascot, I'm a bit perturbed

UPDATE: It seems some of our readers disagree with me. Feel free to join the heated discussion in our comments section here.

I'm sorry, I never saw the problem. Illinois, which I attended, didn't have an indian mascot the way you might think. There was no goofball running around with a tomahawk pretending to scalp people. The mascot was an honorable position, it was a big deal to get the job, and he only appeared in a half-time show that involved an incredibly exhausting dance that paid homage to our state's native American heritage - it doesn't poke fun, mock, anything. And yeah, I get that some native Americans didn't like it. But that doesn't mean they're right. First step, you have the right to complain. Second step, you need to prove your point. I'm not convinced they have. The NCAA, and others, just killed a perfectly respectful tradition that actually reminded Illinoisans of their heritage and made us proud in our school and our state (and frankly, reminded us of our state's native American past, something that is going to be remembered less now as a result of this action). Our mascot was killed because of the caricature that others ascribed to it, not because of the caricature it was - which it was not.

I'll also add that the explanation as to why my school gets to keep its name, the fighting Illini, is a joke:

Illinois still will be able to use the name the Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said.

I'm from Illinois. Illini isn't short for Illinois. How many people do you know who hail from Chicago, Illini? That's absurd. The name comes from the Illini indians, as frankly does the name of the school and the name of the state. Unless the NCAA plans to ban the entire state of Illinois from participating in any post-season events, I'd like to hear an explanation as to why they're now simply playing games with all of this. Or is a respectful use of my state's Indian heritage acceptable, and if so, then why was Chief Illiniwek killed?

One more thing. I'm Greek. My junior high school mascot was a Spartan. Our mascot was about me and nobody else. I thought it was cool. I still do.

PS And they want us to return the outfit the mascot wore, an outfit that the chief of a tribe sold to the university, and not for a necklace of beads 300 years ago - it was a fair deal for $3500 in 1982, and the outfit wasn't historic, it was made by the chief's wife (there's some dispute about the feathers in the headress being special, fine, return the feathers if they can find them). Enough is enough, they got their piece of flesh - at least keep the outfit in a museum. Their chief knew what he was doing, he even came to the university to celebrate the sale. Read the rest of this post...

Senator Reid, why not call for an up-or-down vote on Bush's surge plan?

And no, this isn't what you're already doing. Let me explain.

The House is getting ready to vote today on a resolution critical of Bush's Iraq "surge." This is the same resolution that you, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), are going to try to bring up for debate in the Senate tomorrow, Saturday. If the Republicans continue to filibuster the Senate even debating Bush's surge plan, let alone filibustering a vote on the plan, which is what Senate GOP leaders are hoping happens, then let me humbly propose a Plan B.

In the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, forget the Warner resolution, forget the McCain resolution, forget the House resolution. Forget any other Democratic resolutions that are out there. If Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can't agree as to whose resolution should be debated and voted on, fine. There's only one resolution that matters anyway, George Bush's. (Yes, I know he doesn't have a resolution, read on.)

Announce that the Senate is at an impasse, trash the other resolutions (House, Democratic, Republican), and call up Bush's "surge" plan for an up-or-down vote. Senator Reid, introduce your own resolution describing Bush's plan. Don't play any games with the wording of the resolution, simply put Bush's plan in writing in the form a resolution that supports the surge - period. (I'd recommend you use Bush's speech in which he announces the surge plan, and simply quote the President verbatim in the "whereas" sections of the resolution.) Then call for the Senate to debate and vote on whether it supports the president's own plan. Not the Warner resolution, not the House resolution, but the PRESIDENT'S OWN PLAN.

The advantages of this?

1. All other resolutions become extraneous. No one can offer a competing resolution since per se it won't be germane to the surge (well, they can, but they'll look silly). Cutting off money to troops? Not relevant to debating the surge. Withdrawing all troops immediately? Not relevant to debating the surge. It will be clear to the public that anyone who stops the president's resolution from going forward is simply being obstructionist.

2. Any Republican or Democrat who votes to filibuster this resolution will be filibustering a resolution approving of Bush's plan. A marked difference from filibustering a resolution critical of the president. It's one thing for Republicans to argue that a resolution critical of the president emboldens the enemy and hurts the morale of the troops, but how are they going to block a resolution that lauds the plan the commander in chief is currently implementing?

3. With this approach, you look the above-the-fray leader to the American people. You threw partisanship out the window, got rid of the Democratic and Republican plans, and decided to be a straight shooter and give the president's plan the up-or-down vote it deserves. That's something that no American could disagree with. And anyone who stands in the way will be marked as the bad guy.

Now, I suspect that you probably think the current Warner resolution, or even the House resolution, ARE the president's plan. I'd argue that they're not. Those resolutions are critical of Bush's surge. They're critical of the president, albeit well-deserved. In order to give the president and his supporters MORE than a fair shake, simply offer up the president's plan, unfettered by any critical language or other excess verbiage. I'd go so far as to write the resolution using only direct quotes from the president. Make it ALL his language describing the surge and why it's needed.

Then let's see the GOP claim that the debate and vote is unfair when the only thing being debated and voted on is the president's language detailing and praising the president's plan. Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi to address House about Iraq resolution at 1pm Eastern

Pelosi to address the House about Iraq resolution at 1pm Eastern, these are her remarks as prepared for delivery:

For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.

There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.

We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.

One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.

Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:

Change of mission
Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus
4. Diplomacy
5. Reform reconstruction
6. Refocus on the War on Terror

In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.

Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.

Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."

There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.

Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.

An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.

There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.

In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.

There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.

The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.

Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."

The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.

The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.

By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.

The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.

The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.

Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.

Read the rest of this post...

Keep your eyes on whether John McCain blows off the war vote on Saturday

McCain reportedly has an "elect me president" event on Saturday that conflicts with that small matter of the Senate trying to debate the Iraq war. Any guesses on whether John McCain blows off the Senate war debate and vote on Saturday so that instead of trying to help our troops he can go kiss babies?

McCain already missed the first vote on the small matter of the Senate trying to debate the Iraq war back on February 5, 2007. Read the rest of this post...

Bush "surge" in Iraq will erode our readiness, Army's top general says

I'm rather amazed that after 6 years of abuse our military leaders are finally standing up to the man who is destroying this institution along with the lives of so many of our soldiers. Read the rest of this post...

FBI investigating Nevada's new GOP Governor

Last fall, then-Congressman Jim Gibbons made news when he was involved in an altercation with a woman who claimed he had assaulted her. No charges were filed.

Fast forward, now Governor Jim Gibbons is under federal investigation for his actions as a member of Congress. The FBI is trying to figure out if Gibbons got gifts for performing favors. There are emails:

Reporting yesterday on the investigation, the Wall Street Journal published a series of alleged e-mail exchanges about Gibbons's dealings with Warren Trepp, the software entrepreneur whose company won millions of dollars' worth of classified military contracts during the time Gibbons served in Congress.

Among the dozens of e-mails is one allegedly sent days before Trepp and his wife prepared to set sail on a Caribbean cruise with Gibbons and his wife. In it, Trepp's wife allegedly wrote to her husband: "Please don't forget to bring the money you promised Jim and Dawn." Trepp's reply, according to the Journal report, was: "Don't you ever send this kind of message to me! Erase this message from your computer right now!"

The gifts allegedly included the cruise and travel on Trepp's private jet, as well as some suggestion of a payment that Trepp made to Gibbons, the Journal reported. Gibbons was first elected to the House in 1996 and served five terms.

The culture of corruption reigned when the GOP controlled D.C. The FBI has plenty of work to do sorting it all out. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

The House of Representatives votes today on the anti-escalation resolution. This is the first official rebuke of Bush's war policy. Let's see how many Republicans vote against their president.

Thread, please. Read the rest of this post...

At least one media outlet is asking the important questions about the French elections

La Revue du Vin de France is writing about the issue that matters the most: wine. How can a country like France trust a man like Sarkozy who takes no pleasure in wine? Does Sego have a clue about the over-production of grapes? Is it time to take a closer look at Voynet the environmentalist who knows his wine and appreciates all regions and all wines, organic or not? Is Bayrou truly dedicated to wine appreciation?

Now that Sego has floundered so badly and put an end to any hope of competition, it's time to find something to talk about with the candidates. Inquiring minds want to know. Next subject up for debate: regional food preferences and what it says about the candidate. Read the rest of this post...

$10 billion wasted or poorly spent in Iraq - Halliburton tagged with $2.7B

Remember how the US could not afford Kyoto? Remember how the GOP told us that universal health care was impossible because it would be too expensive? Ten billion dollars could have gone a long way towards helping both our current generation as well as future generations of Americans. Instead, all we got was a crappy $10 billion bill that went to a failed war of convenience and GOP friends with no bid contracts.

And as bad as this is, the auditors say it could get worse since we are stuck in Iraq. This is what happens when you have a useless, rubber stamp Congress who failed to do their jobs and ask questions.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Why does the GOP and Halliburton hate America? What a bunch of swindlers. Read the rest of this post...