Open Thread

Speak clearly. Read the rest of this post...

Abramoff scandal's tentacles really do reach really deep

Today the Wall Street Journal did a major expose on the growing Abramoff scandal. The WSJ is subscription only...but now Reuters is reporting on that article, so here's the good stuff:

Prosecutors in the department's public integrity and fraud divisions are looking into Abramoff's dealings with four Republicans -- former House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, Rep. John Doolittle of California and Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, the paper said, citing several people close to the investigation.

Abramoff is under investigation over his lobbying efforts for Indian tribes with casinos. He has also pleaded not guilty to federal charges in Florida that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.

The prosecutors are also investigating at least 17 current and former congressional aides, about half of whom later took lobbying jobs with Abramoff, as well as an official from the Interior Department and another from the government's procurement office, the Journal said.

Congressman, a Senator, Administration officials, hill staffers....Jack Abramoff just keeps giving. And, remember, his former partner -- who is also a former DeLay staffer -- Michael Scanlon is singing like a canary.

This is going to keep going for a long time. Read the rest of this post...

Alito has problems with ethics -- as in telling the truth to the US Senate

Bush thinks Scalito is the best choice for the Supreme Court. Bush also harbors traitors at the White House so why should we believe him? Alito told the Senate under oath that he WOULD NOT rule in cases involving Vanguard:

Alito serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and has most of his money in mutual funds. When he joined the court in 1990 he told senators he would avoid cases in which Vanguard Group was a party.

Alito heard a case involving Vanguard anyway. Then, he was indignant when challenged. You know he's busted because the spinmeisters at the White House can't come up with an answer:

Senators questioned him about the 2002 Vanguard case, which was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint filed by the woman who lost her lawsuit. Alito withdrew after first ruling against her and the decision was reaffirmed without his participation.

Alito and the White House have offered several explanations: that a computer glitch allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected, that Alito's 1990 pledge to stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was "unduly restrictive."

Bottom line: Scalito told the Senate one thing, then did the opposite. He can't be trusted. Being honest with the Senate should be a prerequisite for serving on the highest court in the land. Read the rest of this post...

If Bush is telling the truth, and we went to war because of a massive intelligence failure by the CIA, then why did he give the CIA director a medal?

So, tell me again how Bush is now claiming that it was the intelligence that was flawed, rather than the White house outright lying to the American people? Because I'm confused. How does the CIA allegedly so screw up that it leads the nation wrongly into war, and then the head of the CIA is given the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the American equivalent of a knighthood?



Seriously, this makes no sense. Bush is lying. He wouldn't have given Tenet a medal if Tenet is to blame for this entire mess.

Shall we all hold our breaths until the MSM asks Bush why he gave a medal to the guy who supposedly got us into this entire mess? Or is Bush just lying again about this being an intelligence failure? Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Sloooowww news day.

Hearing anything interesting? Read the rest of this post...

Yet another reason to loathe Ann Coulter

Just in time for the holidays, that paragon of virtue is trashing Murtha now we learn via Think Progress:

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it’s time to bring the troops home…[T]hey long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason…These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

She really is beneath contempt. Who has done more to serve their country: Coulter or Murtha. In her warped mind, it's her.

Let's keep our troops in a country where the government lets the insurgents knows it's acceptable to kill them. That shows support. Read the rest of this post...

Black t-shirts are here, finally!

We're finally selling black t-shirts in the AMERICAblog shop. I've only got the Treason's Greetings and the "Worst. President. Ever." ones ready so far in black - it takes a few hoops to get the image ready for the black printing. The shirts are only in one style so far, and they're more expensive because the printing process is more expensive for black shirts (Lord only knows why).

Anyway, here they are:

Merry Fitzmas



Happy Fitzukkah



And there are six different versions of the "Worst. President. Ever." - this is just one:

Read the rest of this post...

She's Baaacck: Cindy Sheehan Joins Bush in Texas

From AP:

The fallen soldier's mother whose August vigil near President Bush's ranch reinvigorated the anti-war movement returned to Texas to resume her protest Thursday as the president celebrated Thanksgiving a few miles away.

"I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," Cindy Sheehan said as she arrived at an airport in nearby Waco. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."

Read the rest of this post...

Alito's has problems with one man, one vote

Okay, the fact that the concept of "one man, one vote" is even at issue in the nomination of Scalito should be disturbing enough to derail his nomination:

One of the mysteries still hanging in the confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. is his view of a landmark case that established the legal principle of one man, one vote. The answer varies depending on when you ask -- not to mention whom you ask.

In 1985, when Alito was applying for a political appointment in the Reagan administration, he wrote that he disagreed with decisions by the Warren Court in the 1960s involving "reapportionment." Those rulings required electoral districts to have equal populations and helped ensure greater representation of urban minorities.

Now, the White House is claiming that Alito is telling Senators he's fine with one man, one vote. But how can they trust anything Alito says to them? Alito has a proven track record of telling the Senate one thing, then doing the opposite. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

What were you saying? Read the rest of this post...

Is "last throes" Cheney in his "last throes" in DC?

With favorable ratings below 20% and the mouthpiece for the many lies about Iraq, Cheney seems to be in trouble. With all of his predictions about Iraq now proven to be false and his leadership in the pro-torture movement he now represents the epitome of all that wrong about this failed adventure in Iraq. Perhaps that is why he spends so much time at his new home on the Eastern Shore instead of in Washington, though the locals would rather Dick and Lynne found a new location to annoy people. Considering the conservative nature of the Eastern Shore where the GOP is strong, it's impressive to think that they have become so unpopular so quickly with their new neighbors.

So what's up with Cheney? Is he too much of a political liability or is he sick again or perhaps he's occupied with the Plame-gate scandal. With the administration already having crossed the tipping point with the US public, maybe he is only sticking around to maintain those core supporters because he certainly is not helping with the other 80%. More power to him and I hope he sticks around for a while. Especially through the 2006 elections. Read the rest of this post...

Unfortunate turn of events in France

The rioting has stopped, for now, but looking at how the government is reacting to the root cause of the problems of racism it is only a matter of time before this pops up again. In the middle of the crisis Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy made a number of inflammatory statements which aggravated the situation but for me came as a surprise since he has consistently been the only French politician to discuss racism (well before the riots) and correcting the problem via affirmative action.

The government, led by Chirac, had put together a team to study the problem and surprise, surprise, they rejected any affirmative action plan because in their eyes it runs counter to the theory that everyone in the state is equal. Hmm. France loves math and logic and racism somehow fails to fit into the theory (and god knows they love theory) that everyone is equal already. This rejection of affirmative action is absolute rubbish and guarantees a continuation of the festering problem of racism here.

If anyone takes any time to look at racism in France, new visitors will be welcomed at immigration by blatant cases of discrimination, where anyone that is not white will regularly be questioned and whites will pass through without question. Look around on the streets and see who is pulled over by the police and all too often, they are not white people. Go into an office in France and look who is sitting at a desk and who is cleaning up. It's disgusting, it's archaic and has no place in the modern world in this day and age.

This committee and their response is a sham and a disgrace to equality. I really hope that in 2007 Sarkozy learns to control his outbursts and instead focuses his energy on fixing this problem of racism. Dismissing the problem of racism and talking about theory is so last century. Get with the times. Read the rest of this post...