The ABA on the domestic surveillance

Reuters (a real live news organization) is reporting that:

The American Bar Association told President George W. Bush on Monday to either stop domestic eavesdropping without a warrant or get the law changed to make it legal.

Hmm..I guess the American Bar Association thinks Bush's domestic spying is illegal. But before the conservatives in the audience raise the canard that this proves somehow that the ABA wants to stop Bush from collecting any information on al qaeda, let's take a look at the next paragraph:

"We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply with the law," said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who headed the task force formed to look at the issue not long after the spying program came to light in December.

A few lines later:

"We are not trying to limit the President's ability to go after terrorists," Sonnett told the group's House of Delegates before it passed his task force's resolution with relatively little debate.

"Nobody wants to hamstring the President," he added, "But we cannot allow the US Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," he added.

[ABA president Michael] Grecco told the group the issue is not whether the President can conduct surveillance but whether he can do it unilaterally.

The report can be found here. According to the ABA website, the recommendations now reflect official ABA policy.

IMPEACH

Cheney "ignored his responsibility" to the American People

Guess who said that?

The person who said that also said "The responsibility for handling this, of course, was Cheney's."

While the apologists for the Bush regime snap to attention and try to blame this whole mess on anything BUT dead-eye Dick ("Whittington should have made some noise." or "The Washington Press corp is just mad that some little Texas newspaper broke the story instead of them." or "Those Bush haters just want Whittington to die!") Marlin Fitzwater, Ronald Reagan's press secretary is "appalled by the handling" of this situation. He said:

"What [Cheney] should have done was call his press secretary and tell her what happened and she then would have gotten a hold of the doctor and asked him what happened. Then interview [ranch owner] Katharine Armstrong to get her side of events and then put out a statement to inform the public."

Fitzwater also said:

"They could have done all of that in about two hours on Saturday. It is beyond me why it was not done this way."

Wait there's more:

If [Cheney's] press secretary had any sense about it at all, she would have gotten the story together and put it out. Calling AP, UPI, and all of the press services. That would have gotten the story out and it would have been the right thing to do, recognizing his responsibility to the people as a nationally elected official, to tell the country what happened," Fitzwater added.

"Secondly, it would have been confined to the vice president. By not telling anyone for 24 hours, it made it a White House story. Now it has become 'when was the president notified?', 'why didn't he put it out?' It becomes a story about the White House handling of it."

Now even other conservatives (the sane ones, at least) think the Bush White House screwed up.

In the end, it only shows the contempt the man has for his constituency and for the country he's currently ruining.

IMPEACH

"There's something screwy around here."

Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits quail people.

OK, OK, I know that everyone and their mother has already commented on this but, since Saturday I've had three separate family members go to the emergency room on three separate occasions (the two who I escorted are still hospitalized -- everyone should be OK) so I haven't had a chance to weigh in on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE. And, since I called dibbs on this story, Dayvoe could not comment. And, since as one of our readers commented, this blog engages in "sophomoric humor, name calling, and [has a} general childish tone," I must comment on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE. Besides, I think it's fudding funny. Yes, I know that I'm not the first to make the Elmer Fudd reference, but if the shoe fits... (Besides, I immediately started downloading Elmer Fudd pictures when I heard about THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE on Sunday evening). So fess up: How many of you, like me, laughed your butt off when you heard that Darth Vader shot a 78 year old man in the face? How many of you thought, "God, I hope the Daily Show/Letterman/leno is live on Monday?" How many of you thought, "Jesus, he isn't content to be the cause of so much death in Iraq, he's got to start trying to shoot folks himself?" How many of you wondered why it took almost 24 hours for this story to make the national press? Well, from the press and media coverage so far, I know I'm not alone in my thoughts. For your reading pleasure, I present a roundup of some of the more interesting stories resulting from THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE:

1. Here's the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report on Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting.

2. Here's Scott McClellan unsuccessfully trying to avoid the question of why the public had to find out this story from a tiny little local newspaper THE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED.

3. Here's Ron Reagan asking why local law enforcement weren't able to immediately question the Veep like they would after any other incident when someone is shot. Questions like "Was alchohol involved?"

4. Here's firedoglake with the law on the MANDATORY REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS in Texas and the NRA on gun safety.

5. Here's AmericaBlog letting us know that Ol' Darth didn't really have the necessary paperwork needed to hunt lil birdies in Texas.

6. Here's One of Cheney's adviser's letting us know that Cheney has nothing to be sorry for because "He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." (I guess THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUPPOSSED TO SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE!)

7. Here's Atrios with photos of the people who participated in the hunting party.

8. Here's Josh Marshall explaining exactly how Cheney really did fuck up.

9. Here's Shakespeare's Sister demonstrating that even this story has a connection to a scandal in George Bush’s past.

10. Here's firedoglake reminding everyone how snarky Chickenhawk Unka Dick was when John Kerry went hunting during the election (And Kerry did not SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE).

11. And, Crooks and Liars has Monday's Daily Show video:

Courdry: "Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time-there-were-quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man. Even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists-he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."

A Recent EDITORIAL From The New York Times

In case you all missed it. You can find it here. I can't say I disagree with it. It starts like this:

We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers - and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

And it ends like this:

Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.

In between the EDITORIAL BOARD takes Bush to task for three of its biggest screw-ups; Domestic Spying, The Prison Camps, and (of course) The War in Iraq.

IMPEACH

Corruption - It's the Right thing to do.

From an editorial in today's Post-Gazette:

While the Bush administration has earned a well-deserved reputation for acting in secrecy, similar cloak-and-dagger tactics are popping up on Capitol Hill, where the Republican majority has demonstrated that it can make legislation appear or vanish without even a vote.

A case in point came before Congress' Christmas recess, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist inserted an immunity provision for flu vaccine manufacturers in a defense bill after other lawmakers had agreed that it would be left out.

Some details follow:

Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that GOP officials slipped a $22 billion gift to the health-insurance industry into legislation that was supposed to cut the federal budget. The action was taken during a meeting from which Democratic lawmakers and their staff members were excluded.

Not something they sang about on Schoolhouse Rock, is it? Maybe they need a elementary primer on democracy over there in the red-tinged halls of Congress.

Here's the final paragraph from the editorial staff of the P-G:

Such tactics are more than high-handed. They are a fundamental short-circuiting of the legislative process, just one more layer in the culture of corruption that is slowly strangling Washington and making a mockery of our democratic form of government.

Can one or more Constitutional originalists in the audience (and I know you're out there) explain to me where this is spelled out in the Constitution? It's my understanding that Article 1 Section 7 outlines the process in which a bill becomes law. Where is it written that one party can highjack a bill and insert text that (in the words of the P-G) "other lawmakers had agreed that it would be left out"?

The P-G is right, it's just more corruption from the republicans. Nothing new here, citizens.

New republican motto: "Corruption - It's the Right thing to do."

And if you don't get the pun, you're part of the problem.

IMPEACH

The ABA Poll

The American Bar Association recently conducted a poll, well I'll let them describe it:

According to a poll commissioned by the American Bar Association and released today, 52 percent of respondents said that in the fight against terrorism, the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms, with an additional 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress. Thus 77 percent of Americans express deep reservations about the president’s secret surveillance program.

Wow 77%, that's way more than a majority, huh?

The telephone poll conducted by Harris Interactive® over the past weekend found that only 18 percent of respondents believe the president can suspend constitutional freedoms "anytime the President thinks it is necessary to protect the country."

18%. That's less than 1 in 5.

I would have bolded out the important parts - but it's all important.

The data can be found here.

IMPEACH

Delay Rewarded by his Corrupt Party

From ABC News:

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA _ a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.

"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The vacancy in the Appropriations Committee was created by the departure of Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Ca) who resigned after pleading guilty for accepting $2.4 million in bribes.

It was only five months ago that DeLay was indicted on a charge of criminally conspiring with political associates to "inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington."

Any questions left as to whether or not the Republican party is thoroughly corrupt?

This is not like watching how sausage is made -- this is watching how corruption occurs

It does not matter what the people want -- Rethuglicans will do what they like:

1. Frist & Hastert rigged defense legislation, without anybody knowing they slipped in language protecting pharmaceutical lobbyists from lawsuits

2. Bush snuck Social Security privatization plan into his budget

More evidence Bush lied...

In today's Washington Post:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

And that's just the first paragraph. Here's the fourth:

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," [Paul R. ] Pillar wrote.

Corruption and incompetence - hallmarks of the Bush Regime.

IMPEACH

Sidney Blumenthal on the Gonzales' lies

I think Sidney Blumenthal has it completely right. He wrote this for the Guardian.

In 1996, Governor George W Bush received a summons to serve on a jury, which would have required his admission that 20 years earlier he had been arrested for drunk driving. Already planning his presidential campaign, he did not want this information made public. His lawyer made the novel argument to the judge that Bush should not have to serve because "he would not, as governor, be able to pardon the defendant in the future". (The defendant was a stripper accused of drunk driving.) The judge agreed, and it was not until the closing days of the 2000 campaign that Bush's record surfaced. On Monday, the same lawyer, Alberto Gonzales - now attorney general - appeared before the senate judiciary committee to defend "the client", as he called the president.

Gonzales was the sole witness called to explain Bush's warrantless domestic spying, in obvious violation of the foreign intelligence surveillance act (Fisa) and circumvention of the special court created to administer it. The scene at the Senate was acted as though scripted partly by Kafka, partly by Mel Brooks, and partly by John le Carré. After not being sworn in, the absence of oath-taking having been insisted upon by the Republicans, Gonzales offered legal reasoning even more imaginative than that he used to get Bush off jury duty: a melange of mendacity, absurdity and mystery.

But the scary part comes later on:

Who was or wasn't being spied on couldn't and wouldn't be explained. When Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, asked whether the program could be used to "influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media", Gonzales replied: "Those are very, very difficult questions, and for me to answer those questions sort of off the cuff, I think would not be responsible." When Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, asked for assurances that only al-Qaida or suspected terrorists were subjected to surveillance, Gonzales answered: "Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance."

Whah??? He can't give "absolute assurance" that only terrorists (or suspected terrorists) are being watched?

The amazing thing is that this is the answer he gave even though he wasn't under oath.

How much more do we need to know about this administration before we all understand it's a real threat to our civil liberties?

IMPEACH

WE HIT 100,000!

Take a look.

At about 10pm this evening, 2 Political Junkies hit 100,000 hits on the counter.

Someday soon, we'll all get together and have some beer in celebration.

Oh, yea.

IMPEACH

Cheney "Authorized" Libby

This is baaad news for the Bush junta. Naitonal Journal is reporting:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

And then

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. [emphasis in original]

The thing is, of course, that The Vice President doesn't have the authority to declassify.

And isn't releasing classified material a threat to national security?

About Lynn

So Scranton has dropped out. And then there was One Swann. (OK there's someone else but who even knows it or cares?)

There are 12 paragraphs on Lynn Swann's bio page on his website. After the first brief paragraph that basically says he was born, the next five are about sports.

I never visited Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign site, but I wonder if he had this much info about his body builder/movie career...I kind of doubt it.

And speaking of Schwarzenegger, this is who Democrats need to constantly remind voters of in the upcoming race. AHRRNOLD has made a mess of things in Cali and the voters know it.


SWANN = AHRRNOLD
(with even less business experience)

UPDATE: Well, not so much an update but more of an 'aside" -- something that I forgot to mention.

I know that we are not allowed to mention race in this race, but since we mentioned Swann's website I have to say that if you came to the website from outer space and knew nothing of Pennsylvania, you might conclude from the pictures on it (top graphic, photo gallery, bio page, supporters page, etc.) that Lynn Swann and his family are the only African Americans in the state. I mean, he must know some...(Democrats) .

Go ahead and fire away.

More Trouble for Santorum

Or is it the same trouble - only it's so large that it only LOOKS like more trouble?

Anyway, check this out from the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. John Fortier begins this way:

Sen. Santorum has been watching football and has learned a lesson. If an underestimated team from western Pennsylvania can win the Super Bowl, then maybe an underestimated Republican senator from western Pennsylvania can win reelection. But for Santorum to win, he would not just have to “defy the odds” but rewrite the laws of physics, or at least of political science.

And ends with this:

Perhaps the best parallel is former Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) in 2002, who faced Mark Pryor, a statewide office holder and son of a political icon. But Santorum’s polls are even worse than Hutchinson’s. Pryor beat Hutchinson 54-46.

If you bet on the Steelers last weekend, you made some money. If you believe in parallels between football and politics, your bookie would be happy to take your money.

It's not much fun for Lil Ricky in between either. Some highlights:

In the past, Santorum has not faced the strongest opponents, but he will in November. And his polling numbers are the worst he has ever had and worse than other Senate incumbents who have lost.

And:

Santorum's poll numbers are abysmal. Recent polls show his job approval rating at 40 percent or below and his disapproval rating nearly 50 percent. Typically, an approval rate that dips below 50 percent is a sign of big trouble. Santorum also trails Casey by 10-16 points in head-to-head match-ups.

About the only thing I would disagree with in this article is this:

This time, Santorum is facing a tough opponent. Bob Casey Jr.'s father was a very popular governor. The candidate has held statewide office himself. He is a moderate, closer to Santorum on abortion and guns than he is to other Democrats. He even supported the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And Democrats are solidly united behind him.

Except for that last sentence, I'd have to agree with most everything the article says.

Poor Rick. It'll be so (sniffle) sad to see him go. No more embarrassing homophobia, no more embarrassing religious pandering. No more embarrassments from him at all.

IMPEACH

File Under: Not Even His Base Belives His BS

From the Washington Post:

Evangelicals urge action on global warming

By Alan Elsner
Reuters
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; 3:24 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.

The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.

[snip]

The campaign by the evangelical leaders represented a possible split in President George W. Bush's political base, in which Christian evangelical voters are heavily represented.

However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

[snip]

The Bush administration opposes imposing mandatory limits and backs voluntary efforts by companies. It has also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord signed by the European Union, Japan and most other industrialized nations that sets hard targets for cutting emissions.

The Christian leaders said they were impelled by their faith to launch the campaign out of a growing realization that the threat of global warming was real and that the world's poor would suffer the most.

I always wanted to make six figures

It looks like 2pj is poised to reach 100,000 hits in the next few days so I moved the stat counter to the top of the right nav bar.

(A parade and rally are being planned for when we reach our goal to rival the QUARTER OF A MILLION who showed up to greet the Steelers yesterday. Not.)

Why it's Ok to hate Bush (Part 217)

Bush to Widows of Soldiers: "FU"
"President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years..."

Bush to Soldiers: "FU"
"My nephew received a notice in the mail that the U.S. government won't be picking up the tab for his tuition as promised this semester and probably not for any other semester in the near future. "There is no more money," the letter pretty much said in clear language. Despite the promises and assurances that the government would be there for my nephew if my nephew was there for the government, his college dream is in jeopardy."

Nominees up for The 2005 Koufax Awards: Most Humorous Post

Need a laugh? (Not open for voting yet)

The 2005 Koufax Awards: Most Humorous Post

Here they are. No explanations necessary, I suspect. Comments closed until all categories are up.

2 Political Junkies: What if the Right is Right?

You can see the rest of the nominees HERE.

There are a ton of them and while I haven't had a chance to read them all, Cargoweasel's A Joke and Fafblog!'s Update From the Hunt for Bin Laden are certainly worth your time.

Short Takes

Lots of things caught my eye recently:

* PUNK KID who "corrected" NASA's scientists is not even a college grad.
* The only HERO in the Cartoon Controversy?
* Special "Re-vote" to be held in Ohio because DIEBOLD machines recorded more votes than voters.
* 99.80% ERROR RATE in warrantless spy program.
* More ERRORS: majority of Guantanamo detainees not Taliban or Al Qaeda.
* Injured soldier forced to pay for LOST BODY ARMOR
* Those crazy PENPALS: McCain and Obama.

That's Our Arlen!

Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is often cited as one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in Congress. But where does he stand when the chips are down? While Specter is ostensibly pro-choice, he backed Alito for the Supreme Court.

And then there's Specter's penchant for being "different" as when he famously cited Scottish law to render a verdict of "not proven" on President Clinton's impeachment (his vote was recorded as "not guilty" in the Senate records).

So how did the man who declared Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic" and said the he believed that Bush violated the FISA law conduct the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings yesterday?

On the one hand Specter did not have Gonzales sworn in and as Slate put it:

No witnesses other than Gonzales. No new details of the National Security Agency spying program that the committee was supposed to be inquiring about. No request for the Justice Department's internal legal memorandums about the legality of the NSA program.

On the other hand, Specter responded to Gonzales' prevarications by making such statements as:

"That's false on it's face"

and

"That defies logic and plain English."

Specter closed by suggesting that Bush submit the entire NSA program to FISA's secret court for review.

Mr. Gonzales responded that "we are happy to listen to your ideas."

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether this administration will actually do more than "listen" to ideas?

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether when push comes to shove, Specter will let them weasel out of any real oversight?