Alan Colmes ties GOP Marine hero, prostitute, porn star in knots

And I suspect that's something Sanchez might like. Anyway, Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes was kind enough to send me a clip of his interview yesterday with Sanchez on his radio show. Sanchez claims, among other things, that he's not gay, and that his male prostitution clients weren't gay either. He also said that he hadn't done gay porn or prostitution in 15 years. Holmes corrected him, pointing out a "massage" ad for Sanchez' services placed only 3 years ago. I'd also point out that IMDB says that Sanchez' last movie was 1999, that's 8 years ago, not 15.

You can listen to Sanchez twist himself in knots here (no video, just audio):

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Orchid Blogging

(click picture for larger version)

Remember last week's flower? It's opened up fully now. This is the same one. Nice, eh? I'd actually like the petals to be longer, and the pouch is a bit warty, but still, it is pretty, and pretty amazing that this is a flower. Enjoy. JOHN Read the rest of this post...

Bush sending thousands more troops to Iraq under escalation/surge than he claimed

The escalation keeps escalating. More troops, more money, no sense of accountability:

The Bush plan called for sending 21,500 extra U.S. combat troops to Iraq - mainly to Baghdad - with the last of five brigades arriving by June. The estimated price tag was $5.6 billion. Officials have refused to say exactly how long it would last, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates had suggested that it could be over by fall.

In recent days a different picture has emerged.

The total number of troops required for the plan, while still uncertain, is climbing. When Bush announced the boost of 21,500 combat troops, the Pentagon said still others would be required to go with them in support roles. Its initial estimate of 2,400 support troops has doubled and may go higher still.

The cost also is rising. Administration officials conferred with lawmakers this week about an extra $1 billion, on top of the original $5.6 billion. The actual cost depends on how long the troop reinforcement is sustained.

When asked about the duration of the buildup, Gates has noted that funds for this purpose are only budgeted through September, which marks the end of the government's budget year. This week, however, it was disclosed that Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, a top commander in Iraq, has recommended that the buildup stretch into 2008.

In fact, the number of troops Bush will have to send to Iraq for his "surge," as we reported a few weeks ago, is more like double the number he told the American people. Bush is still operating like it's 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 when he didn't have to answer to anyone on Capitol Hill. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: FOX News Democratic presidential debate dead

The debate is toast, the Nevada Democratic Party pulled out (and good for them). I suspect we can thank FOX News chief Roger Ailes for comparing Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden yesterday.

I'm still a bit miffed that John Edwards was the only Democratic candidate to announce that he wasn't going to attend (well, Richardson finally announced today that he wasn't going, a bit late, but better than nothing). The defeaning silence from the other campaigns suggests vacillation and/or fear, not a quality we look for in our presidents. I'm just saying...

More from ThinkProgress and DailyKos. Read the rest of this post...

Cliff's Corner

Note: Cliff's Corner will be changing days. Start looking for it on Thursdays next week (although it may occasionally still pop up on Fridays, like Jeff Gannon's... oh never mind.)

The Week That Was 3/9/07

Another week. More preposterousness to report.

So did you hear the one about the gay porn star/prostitute/military corporal named Matt Sanchez (his nom de boink: Rod Majors) who won an award at CPAC, had his picture taken with Ann Coulter and was called "a great American" by Hannity?

Well Max did. And Matt did. And Andy did. And Joe did. And AMERICAblog did. And now we all have.

Yup, another right-wing, gay hustler beds the less-fair sex by night, only to cozy up the Party of "Faggot" by day. Where have I seen this movie before?

I wonder if during down time between speeches at CPAC they watched this cinematic gourmand in his heavily touted works of artistic panache such as Jawbreaker and Glory Hole of Fame 3?

Although, I must say, I found the latter lacked the production values of Glory Hole of Fame 2. But maybe that was just me. And you know, it's really a darn shame that John McCain's heartfelt talks on abstinence outside of marriage somehow had no effect on the very active (or was that passive?) Mr. Sanchez.

I mean you'd think a guy with the fortitude to stand up to all those lefties (none of whom have been proven to actually exist) who called him a "baby killer" and spat upon him (or was the latter a scene in his Oscar-nominated tour de force, Touched by an Anal? (seriously, don't click on this at work)) for his military service--ya know, the vast Communist conspiracy alive and well at Columbia University--could have withstood the temptation we all must one day face, to sell ourselves to anonymous, hirsute strangers for $250 a pop.

In any case, this all brings me back to something I have spoken about often in my writing. The psychological projection of a bunch of mentally-metastisized, morally-lobotomized misanthropes known as the GOP.

My favorite historian and social commentator of the 20th Century, multiple Pulitzer-Prize winning scholar Richard Hofstadter, explained the mental state of paranoid, right-wing sexual hypocrites thusly:

"The sexual freedom often atributed to him, his lack of moral inhibition, his possession of especially effective techniques for fulfilling his desires, gives exponents of the paranoid style an opportunity to project and freely express unacceptable aspects of their own minds."

If only we had enough sofas on which all these Republicans could rest so they could work out in private what they burden our politics with in public.

*For more on this and other stories, please go to cliffschecter.com. And begin to save those pennies now for the release of Cliff Schecter's first book this summer, The Real McCain. Read the rest of this post...

Iraq conference promises intrigue but few results

This weekend's "neighbors" meeting in Baghdad is an interesting development, especially for close followers of U.S. policy in the Middle East. American representatives will sit at the same table as officials from a number of regional powers, including Syria and Iran. We have primarily communicated with Iran through emissaries for nearly thirty years, and relations with Syria are not much better, but reports indicate we may communicate directly with representatives from both at the conference. U.S. officials are playing coy (with a particularly ridiculous quote from State Department special advisor David Satterfield, "If we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to this topic — a stable, secure, peaceful, democratic Iraq — we are not going to turn and walk away"), but that likely reflects internal administration divisions more than a unified decision to be coquettish.

The conference itself is unlikely to produce any significant results. There has been little (if any) preparation, and these kinds of meeting usually have tangible results only with significant advance work by all parties. So what's the point? A favorite saying in government is, "The meeting is the message." The point of the meeting is, it seems to me, to show that there can be one.

The NYT article says, "If all goes well on Saturday, a second conference, in early April, will include foreign ministers like Ms. Rice, presumably sitting at a table that includes Foreign Ministers Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran and Walid al-Moallem of Syria." Well, the point of the meeting is . . . to have it. So unless the administration purposely (and in utter bad faith) declares the meeting a failure because it didn't accomplish anything after no real goals were set, we're likely to have higher-level meetings next month, maybe even with an actual agenda. Baby steps.

Supporting engagement with Iran is the overwhelming majority opinion across the political spectrum -- basically everyone to the left of Vice President Cheney favors talks -- and the reality is that Iraq is a huge shared interest between the U.S. and Iran. Without that issue, the U.S. and Iran would have very little motivation to converse. Perhaps this weekend, while hardly being a breakthrough, can be a step in the right direction. Read the rest of this post...

Two more papers drop Coulter

From E&P;. Read the rest of this post...

Massachusetts Republicans for Truth to launch on Monday

Poor Mitt. Those who know him the best don't even like him.

A group of Massachusetts Republicans is planning to launch a Web site on Monday that highlights flip-flops in the record of their former leader, presidential contender Mitt Romney.

The so-called Massachusetts Republicans for Truth is also pledging to run radio and television ads across the country as Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, seeks the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

He has acknowledged changing from a supporter of abortion rights to an opponent, and recently signed a no-new-taxes pledge that his gubernatorial spokesman had previously labeled "gimmickry." During a 1994 Senate race, Romney also pledged to be more effective in fighting for gay rights than his opponent, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., although today Romney highlights his ardent opposition to gay marriage.

"I think he's trying to reinvent himself as a candidate," said Holly Robichaud, one of the site's organizers. "If that's what he wants to do, that's fine. We just want to tell people his entire record. It's up to the voters to decide if he's trustworthy on the issues."

Oh the humanity.

PS From John: Not sure the religious right, or the gay community for that matter, is going to like the fact that gay Republicans now agree that Romney is a "good option" for president. Read the rest of this post...

The most important part of FBI Director Mueller's press conference about the domestic spying scandal

FBI Director Mueller is giving a press conference on just how and why the FBI, again, spied on Americans illegally. Buried in his speech, at the very end of his speech, is this little nugget, which I think is the most egregious and important part of his entire admission:

Exigent letters

MUELLER: By statute, communications carriers can provide us information in emergency situations, and they're entitled to trust our representation that it is indeed an emergency situation. After September 11, the practice grew up whereby we would provide to these carriers a letter saying that indeed we needed particular information because of the exigent nature of the investigation and that a grand jury subpoena would follow. In a substantial number of these cases the inspector general found that there were not necessarily exigent circumstances and that grand jury subpoenas had not followed. And while we were entitled to that information, we were utilizing the wrong vehicle to obtain that information. I should make it clear that communications companies were absolutely entitled to rely on our representation in providing those materials.

1. We're talking about the phone companies and the Internet companies providing copies of your phone records, possibly copies of your phone conversations, your email traffic, the Web sites you've visited, your online chat conversations, and more to the FBI. Let's just make that clear right away.

2. What Mueller just said is that the law says that the FBI can go to phone and Internet companies and get your private information, without first getting a court order, under very particular circumstances:

a. There must be exigent circumstances, i.e., it has to be an emergency, Osama could slip away before the FBI has time to get the court order.

b. The FBI has to go to the court shortly after it solicits your records from the phone company so that the court can issue a subpoena ex post facto, in other words the court can validate the FBI's actions after the fact in order to ensure that they're not violating your rights under the 4th Amendment.

But what did Mueller tell us? He told us that in a substantial number of the cases where these FBI demand letters were issued to the phone and Internet companies, the circumstances were NOT exigent, there was NO emergency, the FBI could have easily gone to a court and had a judge look at the evidence - the FBI was LEGALLY REQUIRED to go to a judge to get a subpoena in order to spy on innocent Americans - but they didn't.

Second, Mueller told us that the FBI never went to the judges after the fact to prove that the FBI wasn't abusing its power by conducting this domestic spying, and more importantly to prove that the FBI wasn't violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution by conducting illegal searches and seizures. Why did the FBI break the law in order to spy on American citizens and violate the Constitution?

Third, the phone companies and the Internet providers, yet again, massively put at risk the privacy of every single customer. Every single one of us was at risk, is at risk, because the phone and Internet companies KNEW the government had to act under exigent circumstances, KNEW the government had to issue a subpoena after the fact, and even though neither of these things happened, we never heard a bloody word from the phone companies and the Internet companies, the courts apparently never heard a word from the phone companies and Internet companies, the guardians of our privacy.

The FBI just spied on American citizens in clear violation of the law and the Constitution. The big phone companies and the big Internet providers were overly-willing accomplices. I want to know what's going to be done about it. For starters, let's haul those phone company and Internet company CEOs before Congress, under oath, and ask them why they're so willing to violate the privacy of millions of innocent Americans.

PS Extra points to CNN for cutting off Mueller's press conference just as the reporters were starting to ask him questions about this massive violation of Americans' privacy in order to report instead on a manhunt that took place in South Florida after a man walked into a store and shot someone, and to then go to commercials. Wow, that clearly took precedence over breaking news involving massive illegal spying on American citizens. And CNN wonders why they just can't seem to catch up to FOX. Read the rest of this post...

"Sharp surge" in violent crime across the country

While the FBI has been busy breaking the law, violent crime is surging across the country:

Violent crime rose by double-digit percentages in cities across the country over the last two years, reversing the declines of the mid-to-late 1990s, according to a new report by a prominent national law enforcement association.

While overall crime has been declining nationwide, police officials have been warning of a rise in murder, robbery and gun assaults since late 2005, particularly in midsize cities and the Midwest. Now, they say, two years of data indicates that the spike is more than an aberration.

George Bush has been neglecting your safety here in America. Read the rest of this post...

ABC News: FBI broke the law in spying on Americans

Republicans simply do not believe in democracy. Republicans send our troops to die in a war fighting for values Republicans don't even believe in. They hate our system of government, they hate our laws, they hate the independent judiciary. So it's no surprise that they would systematically break the law, again, while spying on innocent Americans just like any other police state would.

From ABC:

The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Never a dull moment, huh?

With the debate starting on the new Democratic plans for Iraq, we can expect the GOPers to fall back on their "support the troops" mantra. House Minority Leader John Boehner already started it. Any Republican who says it needs a smack-down -- a hard smack-down. When you send troops to war without a plan and without the right equipment, when you don't take care of wounded troops at the Army's premier medical facility right in the nation's capitol, then you can't say you support the troops. And, any reporter who hears a Republican say that has an obligation to ask that Republican to prove the actual support they've given to the troops.

Thread away. Read the rest of this post...

Bush greeted in Brazil with protests, pushing biofuel agreement

Is buying limited supplies of ethanol from Brazil really the answer to the problem? I can appreciate the interest of Petrobras executives to sell their product to the US, who have deeper pockets than Brazilian consumers, but what does that mean to Brazilians? Then there is the problem of promoting agriculture for biofuel production across Latin America, which large landowners might see as a new financial opportunity, but then what about growing crops for actual human consumption? Is it better to have a cheap day at the pump for Americans or have food on the table for people in the developing world?

The problem always comes back to a need for more efficiency standards and alternative energies that deliver a net positive. This, of course, raises the issue of going against Big Oil and their lobbyists who would rather stay the course, pay lip service and drag their feet, blocking change. Bush is never going to go against Big Oil so it's up to the Democrats to push this issue and focus on the real issue instead of distractions like ethanol from Brazil. Read the rest of this post...

Medical tourism - is this a solution?

As the health care crisis continues with over 40 millions Americans living without coverage, medical tourism to India, Thailand, South Africa and other destinations is bound to grow. Naturally US doctors will complain and talk about cleanliness but that is simple ignorance and probably a bit of jealousy. I have no issue with being treated in these modern, professional hospitals if I am already in the country but wonder if this is really a good long-term plan or just a temporary band-aid? What will it take to get Congress to act on this growing problem?

From the graceful receptionists in tailored silk suits to the plush carpets and spacious rooms -- everything is designed to give the hospital the look and feel of a five-star hotel.

Unable to pay the $30,000 that U.S. surgeons would charge to operate on her herniated disc, Flowers had spent more than three years trying to keep the pain at bay with chiropractic treatments and cortisone injections.

Watching the "60 Minutes" television show in 2005, she learned about Bumrungrad, where most of the doctors are Western trained but the cost of treatment is about one eighth of that in the United States. It was a daunting but tempting prospect.

"My son said to me 'Mom, don't you know that's a third world country?'. But the surgery there cost just $3,500. I knew right then I had to go."

No minimum health care for Americans, but we can find billions for war of convenience. Read the rest of this post...