The Bushie version of accountability

In the Bush WH all you have to do is say "I accept responsibility" and let your underlings go to prison, get fired, etc and somehow you'reaccountable.
"I'm accept full responsibility, which is why I've fired mysubordinate". Is a classic Bushie line.

Not only are they immoral and criminal, but they are cowards too.

Shameful:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.attorneys/index.html

Dick Cheney's future employer or Why does Halliburton hate America?

No bid contracts, war profiteering, shoddy work, endangering the lives of American Soldiers and NOW maybe trying to avoid paying taxes. Why does Halliburton hate America?

Another proud day for the Bush administration and it's personal money making machine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17577926/

Has there ever been a more amoral and corrupt administration?

Sure, Nixon was corrupt, but at least he did something good in foreign policy with China. Bush has done nothing postivie in any area. He didn't meet any of his promises to the people that elected him and his party is in shambles due to the corruption and immorality that he not only allowed but embraced and encouraged.

His will go down as the worst Presidency ever. It effects will be felt for years to come. I have NO DOUBT that Scooter Libby is not the last Bushie to be found guilty of crimes.

The corruption and depravity knows no bounds. It permeates this administration and he ran on "restoring integrity to the Office". He's nearly destroyed it.

Hypocritical Bastards

Is there a single member of the GOP who isn't an adulterous hypocrite criminal?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/

YIKES

Cheney said the attackers were trying "to find ways to question the authority of
the central government."

Let me suggest, that if the Taliban can drive up to the entrance of a US Military installation, I’d say the central government is already in question. But we’ve been saying that for years. If Bush had only finished the job in Afghanistan, then our hand picked president might actually have some legitimacy outside of the capital. Not to mention, the Taliban must have had knowledge of where and when Cheney would be, that should be the scariest part of all. How would they get that information?





And to think, Afghanistan is the one that is going "well". --------------

Afghan blast kills 23; Taliban says Cheney targeted

By ALISA TANG The Associated Press BAGRAM, Afghanistan -- A suicide bomber
attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan today during
a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing up to 23 people and wounding
20.
Cheney was unhurt in the attack, which was claimed by the Taliban and was
the closest that militants have come to a top U.S. official visiting
Afghanistan. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South
Korean solder were among the dead, NATO said.
Cheney said the attackers were
trying "to find ways to question the authority of the central government." A
Taliban spokesman said Cheney was the target.
About two hours after the
blast, Cheney left on a military flight for Kabul to meet with President Hamid
Karzai and other officials, then left Afghanistan.
The vice president had
spent the night at the sprawling Bagram Air Base, ate breakfast with the troops,
and met with Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the commander of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan.
He was preparing to leave for a meeting with Karzai when the
suicide bomber struck about 10 a.m., sending up a plume of smoke visible by
reporters accompanying him. U.S. military officials declared a "red alert" at
the base.
"I heard a loud boom," Cheney told reporters. "The Secret Service
came in and told me there had been an attack on the main gate."

They don't care about cheating

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17136318/

If NASCAR was serious about stopping cheating they wouldn't suspend crewchiefs they'd suspend drivers. You send Jeff Gordon home for cheatingat Daytona, people will take notice, especially the sponsors. Right now there is NO incentive not to cheat. I have no doubt that these crews can still change tiresand understand gas consumption without their chief trackside.

NASCAR's current actions make about as much sense as suspending theDefensive Line coach of San Diego for Shawne Merriman's steroid use...or maybe the team doctor.

This is a nice switch on the "I don't remember" defense to the "He don't remember" offense. The halls of Washington are supposed to be filled with the best minds in America, if not the world. Sure, many elected officials can't claimthat but for the people who work there it should be true. YET, everysingle time someone gets in trouble they "Can't remember anything".This isn't a partisan slam, b/c it works for both parties. As if beingan incompetent idiot is a defense for being corrupt.

When asked about this stuff, it's always "I don't recall". That's bullshit. I guarantee you that any one us could be questioned about infinitely more mundane matters and remember 95% better than any politico that ever gotinto trouble. Whether it's Reagan or Bush selling Arms to our enemies or Clinton getting some in the oval office. There is NO WAY those men get to power without having some intelligence, and memory would be at the most basic level.

No doubt when George Bush goes on trial for his crimes, he'll forget everything even though this guy supposedly can remember everysingle nickname he ever handed out.

New rule: if you use "I don't remember" as a defense for your corrupt actions, you should be deemed "mentally incompetent", removed from office and forever banned from working in any position of governmentalresponsibility.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17128427/

Shins New CD ...disappoints (and it pains me to say it)

The fine people at SubPop were nice enough to send out the new Shins CD
a few days early and I got it yesterday (hits the streets today). So,
I've given it a listen and a half and maybe my expectations were too
high, but I'm disappointed. As you may know, I don't think bands
should necessarily "grow" or "move in new directions". If it ain't broke
don't fix it. It's a small group of bands that can change it up and pull it
off. (think Stones doing Country or the Beatles doing whatever they
want)

That said, the new CD has a few (2 or 3) songs with the "classic" Shins
sound; guitar-driven popiness with very abstruse lyrics. The ambiguous
lyrics are there, but the guitars are missing. At times it feels like
Beck broke into the Studio and added synthesizers. I also think (and I
mentioned this when the single was released) that James Mercer was
listening to a lot of Beach Boys, and I still think he did try to
channel Brian Wilson on a few tracks.

When "Chutes Too Narrow" came out, I didn't love that either, but it
grew on me. It's still no "Oh, Inverted World", but it's a great CD.
At this point "Wincing the Night Away" is not and it hurts me to say
that.

What will Zach Braff do?

New Shins CD

I pre-ordered my Shins CD months ago directly from SubPop. Have you? When I ordered it I also order two CD singles. Oh James, why so long b/t CDs?

Also, the past week...I can't get enough of The New Pornographers "Twin Cinema". I liked it when I bought it, but I have seriously listened to that CD a dozen times all the way through in the past week and it is pure brilliance.

Some more of that ""Bush is doing everything he can to protect America"

"Bush is doing everything he can to protect America" (that's how the Bushies always explain when they are imprisoning Americans while ignoring the COnstitution)

OR

"Just following in Daddy's footsteps by selling arms to our enemy, Iran."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/

Will Bush use this to invade Syria

Are these the Weapons that my Bushie friend has been talking about for four years?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655063/

Which Romney?

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/10/video_of_liberal_mitt_romney_quotes_surfaces
I'm confused. Which Romney do you like?

The "unchanging institution of marriage"

A Bushie friend got his shorts in a bundle over gays in the military. When I asked him why he chose to put America in danger b/c boys kissing made him feel icky, he got onto gay Marriage (a tactic he's no doubt learned from watching America's most dangerous idiot, Sean Hannity, on a loop). That thread had started when the article about retired General Shalikashvili wrote in the NY Times that he felt gays should serve openly in the military.

_______________
In response to his claim that Marriage was an institution that was thousands of years old and was "the basis for our civilization and culture".

My response:

Again, Marriage wasn’t the topic, so I’ll just assume you put your “icky feelings” about gays above the safety of America.

With that established, you need to do some research on marriage. The concept of “civil” marriage is relatively new. Marriage as a religious sacrament is quite older, so if you’re supporting a Libertarian solution that states should completely get out of the civil marriage game, they’ll be glad to have you.

Additionally, since you’ve brought up “thousands of years” you’ve opened up this debate to the globe (since the United States did not exist thousands of years ago). What about other parts of marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, daughters sold into marriage and assorted other practices that have existed as “marriage” for thousands of years, do you also support those for the mere sake of nostalgia? That seems to be your argument. “Because we did it that way, that’s the way we should continue to do it” That is your position, no? Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t hold on to things b/c that’s how we’ve always done it. If so, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight.

I don’t even need to get into the dissolution of marriage and how that has changed.


As for your belief (wrong as usual) that the “institution of marriage” is this unchanging bedrock here’s just a few points to challenge your mind:

1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.

Why we don't need to jump the gun with Iran (and screw that up worse than it is)

As I've said (although it was said by people a lot smarter than me longbefore) that Iran's moderate's don't want to live in an Islamistbackwater. They've tasted Capitalism and freedom and they like it (Justlike Levi's in Russia). So, it looks like the worst thing we could dowould be to act aggressively toward Iran and unify the entire countrybehind the psycho currently in power.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/19/iran.elections.ap/index.html

excerp[t from email "discussion" with Bushie friend

Initially he claimed "all the data shows" that gay marriage is bad for kids, implying that gay parents are not as suitible parents. I then showed him data that said otherwise and he changed his tune to "noboby knows": So, I hit him with this:

As for your “nobody knows” (although I’m still confused how you went from “all the data shows” to “nobody knows” in 13 minutes…and especially since you went to such to such absolutes from “ALL” data to “NOBODY” knows. Quite a position shift in 13 minutes.


This is from a meta study of dozens of studies about the children of Gay parents vs. Heterosexual parents from the American Psychological Association.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are
unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian
women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual
parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual
parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided
by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual
parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth

.

But it seems like the biggest problem the children of Gay parents experience is from bigoted people like you who deny or are ignorant of empirical studies.

Unlike heterosexual parents and their children, however, lesbian and gay parents
and their children are often subject to prejudice because of their sexual
orientation that can turn judges, legislators, professionals, and the public
against them, sometimes resulting in negative outcomes, such as loss of physical
custody, restrictions on visitation, and prohibitions against adoption

So, if you want to see what the worst thing that happens to children of gay parents…look in the mirror.

Incoming Defense Chief says the obvious

Before Bush emasculated the GOP last month, this kind of talk would have resulted in a firing, smear campaign, etc. Now the Bushies have to face reality, this and the rest of reality they have ignored for 6 years. Bush figures he’s got 2 years to get out of Iraq and claim victory. And with only he and Karl Rove knowing what “Victory” is, they can declare it whenever they want.

I would expect a declaration of victory somewhere around June 2008 regardless of what Iraq looks like.



Incoming defense chief says U.S. losing in Iraq

By Robert Burns The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded today that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."
At the outset of his Senate confirmation hearing, Gates said he is open to new ideas about correcting the U.S. course in Iraq, which he said would be his highest priority if confirmed as expected.

Gates, 63, said he believes President Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said.

"In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," he added. Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir."

This is how the democrats piss away victory

Rangel is at his bullshit draft proposal again. This is a great way to lose any support from liberals and moderate middle class. His reasons in the past have little justification in reality. His classic is that minorities are over represented in the military. This is true, but the military also provides lots of opportunities. Now, Rangel would take those opportunites from minorities who want to serve so that people who don't want to serve can have those jobs...well-played.

He also makes a leap in logic that b/c minorities are "over represented" they must be getting killed and injuried more. Statistics show this isn't the case. The last studies I saw showed that casuality rates are near general population ratios.

This is not what America voted for. Americans voted against Bush and his Iraq disaster and now this Democrat is going to try to make AMericans forceably serve in that same army? Could there be bigger proof that the Democrats are idiots and incompetent. If not for Bush's disastorous presidency, I would think the Democrats couldn't get their heads out of there asses long enough to run a town council, let alone the country.

Bush rejects idea of talks with N. Korea

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_213

Bush rejects idea of talks with N. Korea

This has worked so well so far. Isn't the sign of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. What a clown...worst president ever.

The Buck stops...well...not here, but it stops with the people who work for me...I shouldn't be held accountable for the people I hired.

Pathetic.
What a coward.

Fire the underlings. First, I believe Hastert knew andhas known for a long time. To blame the cover-up on HIS EMPLOYEES showsextreme cowardice and lack of any sort of leadership ability. This iswhat passes for leadership and accountability in today's GOP.Shameful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11foley.html?ex=1318219200&en=5a96d8704b1f0582&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

He's President, NOT King

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15145197/from/RS.1/

if you don't believe me go read the Constitution. The President has ZERO Constitutional authority to make laws. ZERO. The President ENFORCES the laws, he doesn't make them. As our Founding Fathers continue to spin in their graves over Bush's continued attempts to become King, "Conservatives" like the Bushies used to be, should be appalled at this incredible misuse of Constitutional Authority. But now that the Bushies have continually embraced the Stalinist vision of the Executive branch, I'm sure they'll have a staunch defense of King George's embarrassingly illegal behavior.