Karl was Abramoff's guy in the White House

We have a little he says/he says going on between Abramoff and Rove. Abramoff says because of Karl he had "strong ties" to the Bush Administration. Karl says Abramoff was a "casual acquaintance." Who to believe? Let's ponder this. Who has the motive to lie now? And, when was the last time Rove told the truth about anything?

From AP

Three former associates of Jack Abramoff said Monday that the now-disgraced lobbyist frequently told them during his lobbying work he had strong ties to the White House through presidential confidant Karl Rove.

The White House said Monday that Rove remembers meeting Abramoff at a 1990s political meeting and considered the lobbyist a "casual acquaintance" since President Bush took office in 2001.

New questions have arisen about Abramoff's ties to the White House since a photo emerged over the weekend showing Abramoff with Bush. Also surfacing were the contents of an e-mail from Abramoff to Washingtonian magazine claiming he had met briefly with the president nearly a dozen times.

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Seems like a good time for everyone to just chat. So talk already.

UPDATE: This is one of the best Daily Shows ever....ever.... Read the rest of this post...

White House defends and touts Bush role in Katrina

What's worse? Option A: Bush wasn't paying attention and that's why the Katrina response was a complete and total failure. Option B: Bush was paying attention and that's why the Katrina response was a complete and total failure.

The White House has decided on Option B, which seems worse. They're basically acknowledging that the President is incompetent:

"I reject outright the suggestion that President Bush was anything less than fully involved," said White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend.

Think about that for a second. Katrina was a disaster. Yet, according to the White House, the President himself was "fully involved" in overseeing that disaster. Wow. We really are screwed. Read the rest of this post...

Cheney broke the law. Prosecute him.

Cheney was hunting illegally. E&P; has the details. Apparently, Texas officials are giving Cheney a warning because he didn't have the appropriate stamps:

In the aftermath of the Saturday shooting, Texas state wildlife officials reported late today that while Vice President Dick Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, but did not obtain a required "upland game bird stamp."

A warning citation--which carries no fine or penalty--will be issued to Cheney, ABC News reported, which state officials described as "routine."

But wait, the Bush Administration says they crack down on gun crimes. At least that's the mantra of George Bush:

"...We're going to reduce gun violence in America, and those who commit crimes with guns will find a determined adversary in my Administration."

Throw the book at him. Read the rest of this post...

He's falling and he can't get up

Bush drops to 39% approval in CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. 56% disapprove. Read the rest of this post...

"Pentagon Adviser" criticizes Muslims for being upset over Mohammed cartoon

Well, the American Family Association calls this guy a "Pentagon adviser." I'd love to see if they're actually paying him to publicly voice his criticism of Muslims. (Click then scroll down a bit to the 8th paragraph.) Read the rest of this post...

Frist promises vote on gay-bashing amendment

Almost missed this little revelation over the weekend. At CPAC, Bill Frist promised to bring the anti-gay marriage amendment up for a vote in the Senate. It is, after all, an election year and they have to feed the beast:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) spoke after Mehlman, and he promised that on June 5 he will bring to the floor a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, and pledged a May vote on eliminating the estate tax, items high on the conservative agenda.

Frist said the amendment is needed to protect the majority of Americans, whom he said oppose same-sex marriage, from "the whims of a few activist judges" who seek to "override the commonsense of the American people." He added, "When America's values are under attack, we need to act."

A similar amendment failed to win the necessary votes in 2004.

Because really, with the war, the failed drug plan, the destruction of a major American city, the huge deficit, the Senate doesn't have any serious issues to consider.

What a coincidence Frist gave his anti-gay speech right after Mehlman spoke. Hmmm. Read the rest of this post...

Cheney's Chappaquiddick

Things are getting fishier and fishier.

As you know, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man this weekend, and according to the most recent reports, his victim was in critical condition for a good long while. That means Cheney likely nearly killed the man.

Putting aside the question of how and why he shot the man, the more we learn, the more troubling this becomes.

1. The White House now claims Bush was informed on Saturday night (the accident happened on Saturday) that someone in Cheney's hunting party had been shot, but Bush was not told that the victim was shot by Cheney. How do you leave that detail out, and why would you leave it out? Especially when we now find out that the victim was in critical condition - that means within a few hours it was possible the victim could have died, and THAT would be news if Cheney had killed someone. And you don't give the president a heads up? This is fishy as hell.

2. The White House seemingly never intended to tell the press that the incident happened at all. The public found out a day later, and only because a reporter got wind of the story. Why was the White House hiding this story, again, if the victim could have possibly died?

3. New questions are being raised as to whether the White House staff contacted the local police immediately after the shooting, as required by law.

In an online chat at the Washington Post site, the paper's White House reporter Peter Baker said reporters in D.C. are "flabbergasted" by the shooting. He indicated that the Post was looking deeply into whether it was reported to the local sheriff and the exact condition of the victim....

In response to another query he revealed, "we are looking today into the issue of the local sheriff's office and what involvement they had in this. Stay tuned, more to come."

4. Cheney isn't sorry and says he did nothing wrong. Huh?

" 'The vice president was concerned,' said Mary Matalin, a Cheney adviser who spoke with him yesterday morning. 'He felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do.' "

You mean, LIKE SHOOTING AN INNOCENT MAN?! What is it with Bush and Cheney? I mean, I get that they're never going to admit making a mistake in invading Iraq, but how hard is it to admit you made a mistake when you shoot someone and almost kill them? And what does it say about someone who can't?

What all of this suggests is that the White House was more interested in a cover-up than the health of the victim or the public's right to know. Their number one issue was hiding the story, or else they would have told the president at least what happened, and they didn't.

This is downright bizarre. And honestly, someone needs to dig a little deeper into exactly how this "accident" occurred. Usually hunting accidents are accidents, but sometimes they're not. But usually when they're accidents, the shooter has nothing to hide and hides nothing. In this case, the White House was intent on hiding something. And that is bizarre. Read the rest of this post...

Yahoo helps jail Chinese dissident

I can't believe I missed this story last week. I saw it briefly but thought it was akin to the Google story - I had no idea that Yahoo literally helped throw a Chinese pro-democracy dissident in jail.

U.S. Internet companies faced fresh bipartisan criticism in the Congress on Thursday following heightened controversy over Yahoo Inc.'s alleged role in the Chinese government's eight-year prison sentence against a second dissident.

To fully comprehend how bad this is, look at the statements from Yahoo's spokeswoman:

"The choice in China and other countries is not whether to comply with local laws. The choice is whether to remain in the country or not," Osaka said. "We have a philosophy of engagement. We believe the Internet is a positive force."

Well, actually, the choice was whether to become the enforcement arm of a totalitarian regime, choosing to throw innocent political prisoners in jail in exchange for hard cash, you witch.

"We only responded with what we were legally compelled to provide and nothing more," Osako said. "We had a vigorous process in place to make sure that only required material was provided," she said.

Oh, so you mean Yahoo only turned over the information that the totalitarian dictatorship requested, no more. So Yahoo didn't gratuitously turn in the dissident's mother too? Gosh, how kind of you. Maybe we ought to give Yahoo the Nobel for that one.

What Yahoo is saying is that if they were around during WWII, Yahoo would have helped Adolf Hitler because there were laws on the books backing up Hitler's policies - and spare me the "don't say Nazi" crap, we are talking about communist China, it's the same thing, Yahoo is saying they will obey any law passed by a dictatorship, no exceptions, so long as they can do business in the country. Yahoo would have no problem with helping kill people in Darfur? No problem working with Iran and North Korea to trap dissidents, maybe even trap American spies and American soldiers? Would Yahoo do that if local law required it (and the law most certainly would)?

According to Yahoo's spokesman, if a fast buck is involved, Yahoo will turn in anyone to the state, so long as local law - laws written by the dictatorship themselves - say that Yahoo has to.

Absolutely disgusting. Read the rest of this post...

The "Bush and Rumsfeld are incompetent idiots" defense working for accused soldiers

The NY Times reports today on the trials of U.S. troops accused of abusing and killing two Afghans:

In the chronicle of abuses that has emerged from America's fight against terror, there may be no story more jarring than that of the two young men killed at a United States military detention center in Afghanistan in December 2002.

The two Afghans were found dead within days of each other, hanging by their shackled wrists in isolation cells at the prison in Bagram, north of Kabul. An Army investigation showed they were treated harshly by interrogators, deprived of sleep for days, and struck so often in the legs by guards that a coroner compared the injuries to being run over by a bus.

There have been numerous problems prosecuting those believed responsible for this heinous treatment. However, the defense seems to have struck upon a novel theory that's working....basically, how can troops know what the rules are when their leaders don't. So, the ineptness of Bush and Rumsfeld are actually working to the benefit of the accused:

Although the administration issued a general order that detainees should be treated humanely, internal military files on the case show that officers and soldiers at Bagram differed over what specific guidelines, if any, applied. That ambiguity confounded the Army's criminal investigators for months and left the prosecutors vacillating over strategy. It also gave the accused soldiers a defense that has seemed to resonate with some military judges and jurors.

"The president of the United States doesn't know what the rules are!" said Capt. Joseph Owens, a lawyer for one of the accused interrogators, Pfc. Damien M. Corsetti, who is one of two former Bagram soldiers still facing court-martial. "The secretary of defense doesn't know what the rules are. But the government expects this Pfc. to know what the rules are?"

Read the rest of this post...

Covering up the Cheney Shooting

E&P; put together the timeline and notes the growing controversy over the delay in reporting this bizarre, yet significant, incident. Very fishy...big surprise, huh?:

The delay in announcing the shooting "will likely be the main question asked of the White House about the apparent accidental shooting of a 78-year-old man during a Texas hunting trip by the vice president," the Tribune's James wrote on the Washington bureau's blog at the newspaper's site.

"When a vice president of the U.S. shoots a man under any circumstance," James noted, "that is extremely relevant information. What might be the excuse to justify not immediately making the incident public?

"The vice president is well-known for preferring to operate in secret....Some secrecy, especially when it comes to the executing the duties of president or vice president, is understandable and expected by Americans.

"But when the vice president's office, or the White House, delays in reporting a shooting like Saturday's to the public via the media, it needlessly raises suspicions and questions of trust. And it may just further the impression held by many, rightly or wrongly, that the White House doesn't place the highest premium on keeping the public fully and immediately informed."

The White House doesn't keep the public fully and immediately informed. Even when they inform us, it's often with lies. So, to paraphrase Mr. James, Secrecy when the Vice President almost executes someone isn't really understandable and expected by Americans.

Is what Cheney did a punishable crime in Texas? Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Here we go again. Another week. Let's just start. Read the rest of this post...

UN report on Gitmo: treatment "must be assessed as amounting to torture"

It is time to see this continuing embarassment and symbol of repression shut down. The Bush crowd acquired a taste for canceling human rights with Gitmo and hasn't looked back since.

The report, compiled by five special envoys to the United Nations who interviewed U.S. officials, former prisoners, and detainees' lawyers and families, is the product of a 1 1/2 -year investigation ordered by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The team did not have access to prisoners at the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo.

"We very, very carefully considered all of the arguments posed by the U.S. government," said Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, one of the envoys. "There are no conclusions that are easily drawn. But we concluded that the situation in several areas violates international law and conventions on human rights and torture."

But the U.N. team concluded there had been insufficient due process to determine that all of the 502 people detained at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002 were "enemy combatants." The team determined that the primary purpose of their confinement was for interrogation, not to prevent them from taking up arms.

It also rejected the premise that "the war on terrorism" constituted an armed conflict for the purposes of international humanitarian law.

The report concludes that some of the treatment of detainees meets the definition of torture under the international Convention Against Torture: The acts are committed by government officials, with a clear purpose, inflicting severe pain or suffering against victims in a position of powerlessness.

Read the rest of this post...