Now Bush says he was only spying on people with "a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches"

From Reuters:

In Crawford, Texas, where Bush is spending the holidays, his spokesman, Trent Duffy, defended what he called a "limited program."

"This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches."

Wow, very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches, yet Bush never sought a court order to conduct the snooping because he thought a court wouldn't let him?! Huh? Let me repeat, the people they spied on "have a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches." If that's true, then any court in the land would haven given Bush a search warrant.

But there's a larger question. If Bush is now telling the truth about who these people are, then pray tell, what the hell was Bush doing letting hundreds if not thousands of people "who have a history of blowing up trains, wedding and churches" run around free inside the US for the past 4 years?

Or maybe this is just another lie. Read the rest of this post...

Kurds have infiltrated the Iraqi army and plan on seizing northern Iraq and declaring independence

Have we won yet? Read the rest of this post...

GOP pro-war group running ads claiming we found WMD in Iraq and Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda

When you belong to a party that no longer practices any of its original guiding principles, all that's left to fight for are the lies. Read the rest of this post...

Fear destroys what bin Laden could not

Read this. A snippet:

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

(Hat tip to Kos) Read the rest of this post...

Why does NBC's Matt Lauer not even blink when Ann Coulter defends the internment of Japanese Americans?

As a follow up to Joe's post below, during her interview with Matt Lauer, Ann Coulter mentioned the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII to DEFEND Bush's illegal spying on American citizens. Now you'd think Lauer might have done a double-take when his guest appeared to be condoning the internment of innocent American citizens simply based on their race, and USING that racist un-American internment to justify Bush's actions today (who else you planning to intern Ann?). You'd be wrong. Matt just giggled along with his softball interview of a woman who is so extreme she shouldn't even be on a warm and fuzzy morning show.

It's nice to know that the mass internment of entire classes of American citizens for no reason doesn't even raise an eyebrow at NBC. Pitiful. Read the rest of this post...

Lauer ♥ Coulter

Crooks and Liars has the video...it's gross. Don't watch on an empty stomach. She's spewing nasty rhetoric that Matt never remotely challenges.

Why is it that the Today Show treats the conservative whack jobs like Coulter and O'Reilly like they are sane and rational commentators? Okay, better question is why they have them on in the first place. And, when was the last time they had someone remotely liberal appear one-on-one with Katie or Matt in that first half-hour? They never do. Just the psychos. Read the rest of this post...

Did he have a blank check or break the law?

Reuters lays out the stark choice:

The domestic-spying order has set off a furious debate over whether the war on terrorism gives Bush a blank check when it comes to civil liberties and whether the president, in fact, broke the law.

In other words, are we a dictatorship or a country where there rule of law reigns? Let's have that debate. Read the rest of this post...

AP does Schumer

Not a bad profile of Schumer. I thought the one small, piece of good news last year at this time was that Schumer was going to head the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They couldn't have found a more ruthless political leader (and I mean that as a compliment.) Chuck plays to win. He plays hardball. He's relentless:

On Wednesday, Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, will complete his annual circuit of visits to all 62 counties in New York state. The appearance marks the end of his first year in a more powerful role and the beginning of a new year that will put him to the test.

Schumer is counting on his time-tested local approach to help Democratic Senate candidates around the country win votes in 2006, particularly in seven states where he believes Democrats can recapture Republican seats.

Easy to forget that not many political insiders expected Schumer to win the Democratic Senate nomination in September of 1998 against Mark Green and Geraldine Ferraro. He did. Then in the general election, Chuck was an underdog against Al D'Amato. But, he thumped him.

Schumer's laid the groundwork for the Dems. to pick up the Senate in 2006 -- he sure has outshone his GOP counterpart, Liddy Dole. I am betting he can deliver. Read the rest of this post...

Insight from Bruce

Thanks to Plutonium Page over at Kos for finding this sweet quote from Springsteen in Mojo Magazine:

... We forget that every adult was brought up on fairy tales so it's natural to go on and, politically for example, want to believe that your President is a nice, honest man. The inability to turn to an adult perspective once you get to the age where you have some political weight is a great tragedy, and this is a period of history when it seems the most obvious type of disguise is on display to the entire world and yet those are the people who are still in power.

Still in power, still lying, still destroying lives. And the fairy tale lives on. Read the rest of this post...

Mid-day Open Thread

Another slow news day, it seems. Hearing anything interesting? Read the rest of this post...

The Wash Post has just figured out that Bush is a liar

It's hard when you learn there is no Santa Bush. Read the rest of this post...

Conservative columnist says Bush is "his own worst enemy"

Right winger Kathleen Parker, in her latest column, tries to help Bush with that pesky definition of "victory." But, this is how she gives him some love:

Staying the course is no one's easy road, and Bush is his own worst enemy some days. He seems tired of his own slogans and platitudes. We won't cut and run. We'll stand down when they stand up. Shift to the left, shift to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight.

In one of his speeches, Bush seemed to lose interest in his own text and didn't bother to complete a sentence about the Iraqi elections. Weary-looking and gray, he has aged dramatically in five years.

Yes, that's the man who is leading us to "victory." Read the rest of this post...

Why does the media dismiss the impeachment discussion?

Yesterday, driving from NY to Boston, I was listening to WBZ News Radio. They had an interview with an ABC Radio News Political Analyst named Steve Roberts -- who, I believe, is the husband of Cokie Roberts -- to give the insider perspective on Washington. The question of the domestic spying scandal arose. Roberts explained in grave tones how serious this matter was, and that it could mean that the President violated a law. (I'm paraphrasing here). When he was asked whether this meant impeachment was an option, he scoffed at it claiming that was only the talk of extreme liberals trying to score political points and the bar for impeachment was very high. If that is the spin from Roberts, it is probably the talking point for the way, way inside Washington MSM -- the cocktail circuit. They pooh, pooh impeachment talk.

First, how quickly the media forgets that the GOP showed the bar for impeachment wasn't that high when they went after Clinton. So, if Bush broke the law, impeachment has to be an option. That's actually in the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Why is it that stating the obvious makes one an extreme liberal? Why is it that holding the President accountable to the rule of law is dismissed? Read the rest of this post...