Will Pitt Students Be Denied Their Right to Vote?

ACTION: Ravenstahl to prevent Pitt students from voting in special election?

HELP PROTECT STUDENT VOTING RIGHTS

As you probably know, Gene Riccardi resigned his seat on City Council (District 3) as he was sworn in as District Judge. This cleared the way for a Special Election to be held.

** Council District 3 includes Pitt Towers, where 12% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the district reside **

The date of the special election will be set by actions taken by Council President--and 25-yr-old--Luke Ravenstahl. As things stand now, the special election will be scheduled for March 7--RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PITT'S SPRING BREAK. Ravenstahl can, however, take action to have the election scheduled for March 14, after Pitt students have returned.

This special election is the first time in quite a long time that Pitt students can have a real say in their representation on Council, and it is a slap in the face to all of us who have worked to mobilize voters locally.

Young voters here ARE engaged.. A couple of notes:
* While citywide, turnout was down 13% in the mayoral election, turnout was UP by 40% in Pitt Towers
* Citywise, turnout was up 14% in the presidential election; turnout was up 62% in Pitt Towers

Here is what you can do:

1---Call your Councilperson & Council President Ravenstahl BEFORE 10am on 1/11 (TODAY). Ask them to ask Mr. Ravenstahl to recommend March 14 as the date for the special election.

District 1 - Luke Ravenstahl - 412-255-2135
District 2 - Dan Deasy - 412-255-8963
District 4 - Jim Motznik - 412-255-2131
District 5 - Doug Shields - 412-255-8965
District 6 - Tonya Payne - 412-255-2134
District 7 - Len Bodack - 412-255-2140
District 8 - Bill Peduto - 412-255-2133
District 9 - Twanda Carlisle - 412-255-2137

2---Come today to the public hearing period before the City Council's Standing Committees Meeting at 10:00 a.m., and use your 3 minutes to make your opinion heard. Come to the City Council chambers on the 5th floor of the City County Building at 10:00 a.m., and during the public comment period everyone who wishes to speak gets 3 minutes at the mike.

3---Write a letter to the Post-Gazette. Send your letter to the editor by email to letters@postgazette.com or by fax to 412-263-2014. Don't forget to include your full name, address and telephone number for verification. Be concise and to the point.

4---On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 3pm, Place: TBA on Pitt's campus
City Councilman Bill Peduto, the League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems and other concerned groups will be holding a press conference and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so UPitt students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 12:30, at the corner of Forbes and Bigelow (in front of Hilman Library). The League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems, and other concerned groups will be holding a and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so University of Pittsburgh students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

Council Member Bill Peduto has given his support to the efforts to change the election date and he will be attending the rally.

For more info contact the Pittsburgh League at pittsburgh@indyvoter.org

From the Post-Gazette (1-10-06):

Councilman William Peduto said that if the request to the county is made today, Wednesday or Thursday, the election would likely be held March 7, when University of Pittsburgh students are on spring break. Most of the district is south of the Monongahela River, but it includes parts of South Oakland and Central Oakland.

Mr. Peduto urged that the request be made Friday, which would allow for a March 14 election.

"I think [Ms. Johnson-Wasler] is probably planning on having it ready on Friday," said Mr. Ravenstahl.

From the Post-Gazette (1-11-06):

A special election to replace former city Councilman Gene Ricciardi will be held March 7, council President Luke Ravenstahl said yesterday.

That date drew fire from Councilman William Peduto, because it falls during the University of Pittsburgh's spring break, and many of the affected district's registered voters are Pitt students. He said thousands of young people "would be denied the opportunity to vote on the 7th" and urged that it be held March 14.

Announced Candidates:

Democrats:
Eileen Conroy of Oakland
Ed Jacob of the South Side Slopes
Jeffrey S. Koch of Arlington
Bruce Krane of the South Side Flats
Bruce Kraus of the South Side Flats
Pat Sweeney of the South Side Flats

Green Party:
Jason Phillips of the South Side Flats

Libertarian:
Mark Rauterkus of the South Side Flats

The winner will serve out Mr. Ricciardi's term, which runs through 2007.

The Third Council District is comprised of:
Carrick, the South Side and South Oakland: Mt. Washington, Allentown, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Southside Flats & Southside Slopes, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, St. Clair, Arlington, Arlington Heights, South Oakland and Central Oakland

THIS IS MY DISTRICT, PEOPLE. AND, I DON'T APPRECIATE A DEMOCRAT TRYING TO DENY STUDENTS THE VOTE -- WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

Lowry at the National Review: It's a REPUBLICAN scandal

I found this via the dailykos. Here's the important stuff:

Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection. [emphasis added]

Can someone please tell Fred Honsberger? He's been trumpeting (for days) the Republican party line about the "contributions he [Ambramoff] or his clients made to Democrats." [emphasis added]

If someone at the National frickin' Review says that it's misdirection to portray the Abramoff scandal as anything other than a Republican scandal, we can be pretty sure that that's exactly what Freddo's doing.

IMPEACH

Melissa Hart in the News!

Our Missy Hart's made it onto talkingpointmemo.com. Good for her.

Looks like her vote for the "Delay Rule" is coming back to bite her on the ass. Here's Josh Marshall:

Wednesday's Post quotes Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) saying: "We will want people who are clean running the House." She's supporting John Boehner (R-OH), who is being held out as the clean candidate in comparison to acting-Majority Leader and one-time DeLay protege Roy Blunt (R-MO). And it's certainly an admirable sentiment.

But a year ago she was a vocal supporter of the DeLay Rule which was designed to let DeLay, then the Majority Leader, remain in his post even after he was indicted. Members of her staff told TPM Readers who contacted her office that she voted in favor of the Rule. In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

In fact, DeLay had so much confidence in Hart that after he purged the Ethics Committee in early 2005 (see 'night of the long gavels') she was one of the loyalists he put on the committee. Indeed, while DeLay was still in the driver's seat enough to be calling the shots, Hart was tapped to lead the Majority-approved investigation of DeLay.

The important line in Marshall's entry is this:

In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

So is it safe to say that she supported Tom Delay before she didn't support him?

IMPEACH

Reported: Fiztgerald to charge Rove -- Rove will refuse plea

A friend called me saying that she heard on Lynn Cullen's WPTT 1360 radio show that Fitzgerald will charge Rove.

And, a Daily KOS diary links to this TruthOut.org story (Raw Story links to it as well):

Fitzgerald Maintains Focus on Rove
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Investigative Report

Tuesday 10 January 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have
spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

Although there have not been rumblings regarding Fitzgerald's probe into the Plame
leak since he met with the grand jury hearing evidence in the case more than a month ago, the sources said that Fitzgerald has been quietly building his case against Rove and has been interviewing witnesses, in some cases for the second and third time, who have provided him with information related to Rove's role in the leak. It is unclear when Fitzgerald is expected to meet with the grand jury again.

[snip]

According to sources, Fitzgerald had planned to meet with the grand jury several times last month, hoping to wrap up the case specifically as it relates to Rove's involvement. But the prosecutor, who empanelled a second grand jury in November and whose term expires in 18 months, had his hands full dealing with another high-profile criminal case he is prosecuting involving Lord Conrad Black, owner of several major metropolitan newspapers, who was indicted on charges including racketeering.

[snip]

But sources knowledgeable about the case against Rove say that he was offered a plea deal in December and that Luskin had twice met with Fitzgerald during that time to discuss Rove's legal status. Rove turned down the plea deal, which would likely have required him to provide Fitzgerald with information against other officials who were involved in Plame's outing as well as testifying against those people, the sources said.

So, if we are to believe this:

- Rove will be charged

- He will not accept a plea

- (Inevitable pardon to follow)

That's Our Bush!

Only took him five years to get us back to where we were when he took office!

Altmire Campaign Slims Payroll

Funds drying up?

Politics PA reported last week that Mark Salvas has left the Jason Altmire for Congress Campaign. He had been serving as the campaign's Communications Director. A little birdie told us last Tuesday evening that he wasn't the only one dropping their support in that campaign.

Maybe folks are realizing that now is not the time to run a lobbyist for Congress...

Maybe it just doesn't help that there's a better, stronger candidate (Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner) running now....

Maybe some folks just don't find his principles all that principled...

(Maybe if I hadn't had such a hellish week, I could have posted this days ago...)

Pittsburgh Impeach Bush!

Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (38th state Senatorial District) has initiated a local impeachment campaign here in the city of Pittsburgh.

He has a petition calling for impeachment and a censure of the President and Vice President which will appear as a full-page ad in the Pittsburgh City Paper news weekly prior to the State of the Union Address. You can sign it online here (deadline for signing is January 21).

You can view the ad at pittsburghimpeachbush.org.

This action is unprecedented, and Pittsburgh may be the first US city to organize a campaign of this nature.

Senator Ferlo's action supports Congressman John Conyers resolutions 635 (H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.), 636, and 637 (H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.).

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts here (enter zip code at the top of the linked page)

This effort is being done in conjunction with CensureBush.org

SPREAD THE WORD!

________________________________
tags: impeach impeach bush Impeachment censure Politics ferlo

Stop Alito this Wednesday in Pittsburgh!

Join the voices speaking out against Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

Now is the Time!!!

Individuals and organizations are coming together in Pittsburgh to lend their voices to the fight.

WHEN: Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 6:30 PM
WHERE: The United Steel Workers Building, 5 Gateway Center (The Corner of Stanwix St and Blvd of the Allies, 1st Floor Lobby Conference room
WHY: To show our opposition to Samuel Alito's Nomination.

All those opposed to the nomination are invited and encouraged to attend.

Bring signs and banners from your organizations so we can show the diverse groups in opposition.

This event is being facilitated by the Alliance for Justice and the National Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section and is supported by the Western Coalition For an Independent Court.

CONTACT: Reed Millar from the Alliance for Justice for more information:
reedmillar@yahoo.com 484-769-3564

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What You Can Do Today:

Call Senator Specter TODAY!

Let him know that you oppose Alito's nomination. Let him no that you consider Alito to be outside the mainstream.

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter
Washington D.C. office: 202-224-4252
Pittsburgh office: 412-644-3400

Senate Judiciary Committee Experiences Burning, Itching Sensation

(We've often thought that the Senate was full of asses, we just didn't know that they were holy.)

This story is right up our alley. According to the Wall St. Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

[snip]

The three ministers insisted they weren't taking sides in the Alito debate. "This is not a pro-Alito prayer," insisted the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. With abortion, public prayer, gay marriage and right-to-life issues among those topping public debate, however, "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said.

When asked, God had no comment.

More Treason from the Mainstream Media

Take a look.

A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Why do all those people want to make it harder for our dear and glorious leader to fulfill his pledge to protect us from the evil doers who want to kills us?

I think they secretly want our great leader to fail. Because the 2000 election didn't go the way they planned, they're filled with so much hate that they'll do anything, say anything, to sabotage his divinely approved administration.

I think it's totally and completely correct for our glorious leader to ignore the will of the people and both the spirit and letter of the law whenever he needs to in order to protect us from the evil suiciders and terrorists.

Personally I believe it in my heart that the liberal media is to blame. If they would only publish the truth (like they do at newsmax.com and the Fox News Channel) every American would see that Bush is a great president, that right after Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks, he shuttled his Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bekaa valley in Syria in order to keep them safe, that Tom Delay is a good Christian, and finally that whatever our glorious leader is accused of doing, it doesn't matter because that scumbag Clinton did much worse.

(The preceeding message was brought to you by the Right-wing blogosphere. The Right-wing blogosphere: No need to worry about facts, just remember that God is on ourside - not on the side of the treasonous atheist liberals.)

IMPEACH

Congresswoman Melissa Hart

Was interviewed on Fred Honsbergers radio show on KDKA a few days ago. Fortunately, I was taking notes. It was a "report in" of sorts for the Congresswoman as she'd just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq.

She related one story that I found curious - if only when I peeked under the surface a bit. She said she'd visited the place where the Humvees are being "up armored" or fitted with new armor that would go all the way around the vehicle. She was told that they'd all be finished by the end of this March. And when the general in charge was asked what the congressional delegation could do (if anything) to get the newly armored Humvees out into the field sooner, he responded with a "any help we can get is welcome" type answer.

A few questions. The invation was in March of 2003 - and they're just finishing the process of armoring the Humvees now?

And I realise that I am responding to my notes that were based on what Missy Hart said that a general said (so how many layers of heresay is that????), but it looks like the general in charge of putting the new armor on the old Humvees is still looking for help. Again - three years after the invasion????

How does this fit in with the recent news of a certain Pentagon report about body armor (or the lack thereof)? Take a look:

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Fred didn't ask. Of course not.

Missy Hart also said that when she was in Iraq, she tried to call Fred's show with her satellite phone. But unfortunately the phone didn't work. I guess that's a good thing, though. Imagine if it did work. Isn't the NSA tracing all the incoming e-mails and phone calls (including satellite calls) from Iraq? Wouldn't a call placed on a satellite phone from Iraq to the US end up among the calls traced? Imagine, again, if the satellite phone worked. What would Missy Hart say if she knew that the NSA was listening in on all of her phone conversations? Public AND private?

Fred didn't ask her about that, either.

On the NSA spying (which Fred Honsberger labelled as "Supposed NSA Spying") - she did her rightwing duty and attempted to extend the lie that "prior presidents did pretty much the same thing." Which "prior presidents?" Nixon? Well, that's true I guess.

But among the wing-nut crowd these "prior presidents" could only mean Carter and Clinton. But this we know to be a lie. Here's the Washington Post:

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."[emphasis added]

If Missy Hart was talking about Nixon, I guess she was right. But then again Nixon was indicted for his abuses of power.

If Missy Hart was talking about Carter and Clinton, she was lying.

She did, however, loyally add that she wasn't sure whether the president violated the law and that we're winning the war in Iraq. History will tell whether she's bullshitting us on those two points as well.

IMPEACH

Rick Santorum DOESN'T TRUST BUSH??

In his latest attempt to distance himself from himself, Rick Santorum did this.

Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to create an independent, non-partisan commission to objectively evaluate progress in Iraq.

Whah?? You mean that Rick Santorum, #3 guy in the Senate, doesn't trust Our Glorious Leader to be speaking the truth when talking about Iraq?

Mr. Santorum told the president that he was joining other members of Congress in their call for a panel that could "objectively and critically report" progress in Iraq to build Americans' confidence and trust in the mission.

But hasn't Our Glorious and Infallible War-President already said that there's been progress in Iraq? Isn't that enough for the little ingrate? What, is he some sort of Bush-hating anti-American hypocrite?

Though the Senate passed legislation in November requiring more frequent and detailed reports on Iraq's reconstruction and military efforts, Mr. Santorum indicated yesterday that he did not think those reports, which will come from the administration, would provide what he views as the need for "an objective assessment."

"I believe that the American people have not received an accurate picture of America's successes and challenges in helping Iraq establish their democracy," Mr. Santorum wrote.

Santorum thinks that what the administration reports won't be accurate or objective. He also wants them to create an independent commission to tell us all what he already knows to be true. What's up with that? Oh, that's right:

The letter is a significant shift by the Pennsylvania Republican, whose stalwart support for nearly all aspects of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq could be a significant handicap in his race against state Treasurer Robert P. Casey this year if Pennsylvanians' support for the war continues to decline.

Now I understand.

IMPEACH

"It's not my fault that you're crazy"

Rick Santorum (R-Va) was on the Imus in the Morning show on MSNBC this morning (he's a frequent guest there). I don't know shorthand and didn'trecord it, but this is close until there's a transcript:

On the Abramoff Scandal:

Santorum said that he received no money from Abramoff, but that he did receive money from two Indian tribes and that one of the tribes was being directed from Abramoff and that they were giving the money back to the tribe. They were still investigating the other tribe and would give back that money if it turned out that Abramoff was "directing" them.

Imus: "So there's no chance that we'll see you with a raincoat over your head in handcuffs?"

Lil Ricky: "I know you guys were sort of hoping for that. This is what you guys are all about."

On the Recent Mining Disaster:

Lil Ricky: "These are really good people...They have their faith. They have their families. They have their community."

Imus: "Getting right with Jesus."

While I have no idea what Imus was trying to say, I will tell Little Ricky that there's one thing that the 12 miners who died didn't have: A UNION.

"If it'd been a union mine this never would have happened," said Earl Casto, a former miner whose cousin, Junior Hamner, died in the accident. "This should make all coal miners working open their eyes." Mr. Casto said that his cousin complained frequently about the safety violations that occurred.

They also didn't have the support they needed from their President:

Now, after another bad accident, we find out that since the last accident in 2002, not only did the President ignore calls by Democrats to address the situation seriously, but he actually enacted more cuts to mine safety programs and weakened mine safety regulations.

The 2002 fact sheet and the Chicago Tribune article shows that Bush knew full well that mine safety was suffering - and now we know he didn't do anything about it, to tragic consequences. They can put out GOP hacks and administration spokespeople to deny this reality - but the facts are there. Here's hoping Democrats are able to force an investigation, as requested by Reps. George Miller (CA) and Major Owens (NY) - it's high time the White House answer for its negligence.

On The President Breaking the Law:

Imus: "So what about the President breaking the law?"

Lil Ricky: "I'm sorry, what story are you reporting on?"

Imus: "The wiretaps."

Lil Ricky: "But you said 'breaking the law.'" ..."The president in limited circumstances should be able to...This is not something your average American has a lot of concern about or should have...Who says that some judge who has been appointed -- maybe by this President or other Presidents -- has any better knowledge of or any better concern than the President?"

Note to Lil Ricky: The law he would be breaking is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And it's not "who" says a judge is better able to handle this, it's "what." And, the "what" is the US Constitution.

On Being Crazy:

Lil Ricky starts saying something or other about the President "staying above the fray."

Imus: "I love you but you're a crazy person...It's not my fault that you're crazy."

Lil Ricky: "But you're still behind me?"

Imus: "Yes, I am."

Because crazy people make for good TV!

Bush on McCain's Torture Ban

I found this at the Huffington Post. It pointed me to an article in the Boston Globe. It shows our glorious leader's true colors. And the level of respect he holds the rule of law. Here's how it starts:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Basically, he signed the law and intends to follow it - untill he intends not to.

Are we still in a Constitutional Republic?

IMPEACH

AirAmerica Radio on WPTT???

This is odd. Take a look at this page. As of Wednesday evening 1/4/05 this is the list of radio stations that have air america programming:

Eastern

Akron, OH - WARF-AM 1350 AM

Ann Arbor, MI - WLBY-AM 1290 AM

Asheville, NC - WPEK-AM 880 AM

Atlanta, GA - WWAA-AM 1690 AM

Bennington, VT - WBTN-AM 1370

Binghamton, NY - WYOS-AM 1360 AM

Boston, MA - WXKS-AM 1430 AM

Boston, MA - WKOX-AM 1200 AM

Brattleboro, VT - WKVT-AM 1490 AM

Burlington, VT - WVAA-AM 1390 AM

Chapel Hill, NC - WCHL-AM 1360 AM

Chattanooga, TN - WDOD-AM 1310 AM

Cincinnati, OH - WCKY-AM 1530 AM

Cleveland, OH - WTAM-AM 1100 AM

Columbia, SC - WOIC-AM 1230 AM

Columbus, OH - WTPG-AM 1230 AM

Detroit, MI - WDTW-AM 1310 AM

Grand Rapids, MI - WTKG-AM 1230

Huntington, WV - WRVC-AM 930 AM

Ithaca, NY - WNYY-AM 1470-AM

Key West, FL - WKIZ-AM 1500 AM

Miami, FL - WINZ-AM 940 AM

Montpelier/Barre/St Johnsbury, VT - WDEV-AM 550

New Haven, CT - WAVZ-AM 1300 AM

New York, NY - WLIB 1190 AM

Petoskey, MI - WWKK-AM 750 AM

Pittsburgh, PA - WPTT-AM 1360

Portland, ME - WLVP-AM 870 AM

Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI - WHJJ-AM 920

Rochester, NY - WROC-AM 950 AM

Rocky Mount, NC - WEED-AM 1390

Sarasota-Bradenton, FL - WSRQ-AM 1450 AM

Springfield, MA - WHMP-AM 1400 AM

Washington, DC - WWRC-AM 1260 AM

West Palm Beach, FL - WJNO-AM 1290 AM

Notice anything?

Does anyone have any idea what's going on with this?

=====

(1-8-06) WAY OVERDUE UPDATE: I e-mailed WPTT and John Poister, the program director over there responded with this:

David:
We are listed as an Air America Affiliate because we carry The Thom
Hartmann Show which is distributed by Air America. We have a fairly
heavy schedule of locally produced programming and, at this time, we
have no plans to expand our (good) relationship with Air America.

So I guess that, as they say, settles that.

IMPEACH

Dan Simpson is (more or less) correct

Take a look at Dan Simpson's column today. From the first paragraph, he doesn't pull very many punches, does he?

President Bush's action in turning the National Security Agency loose to record American citizens' telephone calls and e-mails without following the law governing such matters is now being made subject by Mr. Bush to the usual administration smokescreen of lies and investigations that the public has come to expect when something bad the White House has done meets the light of day.

Not only does he come right out and proclaim "the usual administration smokescreen of lies" but he then immediately follows it with "that the public has come to expect." He's right of course. They lie and we're no longer surprised to see that they lie.

He then does some of our job for us (thanks, Dan - we really appreciate it!) with the next couple of paragraphs:

It is thus probably time to take a close look at what is occurring, to try to keep our eyes on the ball as Mr. Bush and his spinners kick dust at us.

First of all, no one is arguing that NSA shouldn't bug potential terrorists, nor that the CIA and the FBI shouldn't keep files on these people. In light of the blunders by the CIA and the FBI in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be clear folly not to.

But that isn't what this is about. What it is about is that there has been in effect since Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed in 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates the circumstances under which such bugging becomes legal -- as opposed to an arbitrary abuse of executive branch power. [emphasis added]

He clarifies a few paragraphs later:

How Mr. Bush decided that it was acceptable for him simply to ignore the 27-year-old law and just order the surveillance to begin -- and, presumably, to continue, since we haven't heard yet that he has ordered non-court-sanctioned NSA monitoring to end -- remains to come out.

He claims that the nebulous post-9/11 congressional resolution that he says authorized him to make war on America's enemies superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as law that he as president is required to observe and respect.

We will pass over in silence the question of whether the "war" on terrorism is a war and if "terrorism" is an identifiable enemy against which the United States can wage war and stay within the bounds of logic. We will also leave aside the question of whether the undeclared war in Iraq is one that justifies the bypassing of a law that is essential to the protection of Americans' civil rights.[emphasis added]

If the question were not left aside, I'd have to answer it with a hearty "Hell, no!"

My only disagreement with the eminently agreeable Dan Simpson comes next:

I am not building up to an argument for impeaching Mr. Bush because of his violation of an important U.S. law. I think there is no chance whatsoever that a Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Mr. Bush's party, would even look at such an action. In my view, the effort to impeach President Clinton was a major waste of time, even though his actions that led to it were certainly deplorable. There is also the truly frightful prospect that, if, by hook or by crook Mr. Bush were successfully impeached, Vice President Dick Cheney, in shaky health, would become president.

I am quite happy that he clearly asserts that Bush violated the law. Dan Simpson is a careful writer (and former diplomat) and if he writes the phrase "...because of his violation of an important U.S. law" without without adding the word "possible" (or some such synonym) before the word "violation" you can be pretty sure that he believes that the president violated the law.

I would part company on the impeachment, however. But then I am sure all the readers of this blog already know this. Impeach 'em all! If they violated their oath of office (which is clear) then they do not deserve to sit in the seats of power. Our constitutional system (what's left of it) needs to be protected. If that means that Dennis Hastert is president until the next election (or at least until the Abramoff scandal brings him down), then so be it.

Our system has to be protected from the Bush corruption.

He gains back my happy approval with the slam-dunk ending:

Mr. Bush cites war as the basis for breaking the law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally well be argued that the most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders who break its laws?

Bravo, Dan Simpson.

IMPEACH

The OTHER Swearing In Ceremony

The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat attended Bob O'Connor's coronation and reports on it here. While I was in the area too then, I was inside the City County Building watching the swearing in ceremony for Daniel Deasy, James Motznik, Tonya Payne and Bill Peduto.

While ADB noted that:

Prior to getting downstairs, I heard the choir warming up, but because of the echo downtown, it sounded like the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence from 2001. Very, very strange and eerie.

I have to say that it sounded even stranger in City Council Chambers when one was trying to listen to the members speeches. And speaking of those speeches:

Dan Deasy's speech was (ZZZZZZzzzzz). Sorry, I nodded off just thinking about it.

Jim Moztnik hit all the right notes and also got the biggest laugh line of the morning by recounting his kid's prayer to Santa for better parents.

Tonya Payne thanked everyone by name who she's ever met in her life (including me so I'm really not complaining). She also managed to clock the most laughs per minute while still having the most touching moment of the morning when she got a little teary-eyed thanking her parents. (Some of her speech is quoted here in the Post-Gazette.)

Bill Peduto had the shortest speech, but also the most inclusive and hopeful. In addition to favorably quoting a Republican -- Teddy Roosevelt -- he also quoted "The Paradoxical Commandments" (which he also had printed on the back of his Christmas cards).

The loudest cheers went to Payne and Peduto (I heard someone behind me mutter something about a "lack of decorum" during one point when a large portion of the room erupted in applause for Payne), but all the members who were sworn in were well represented and well applauded.

Oh, and someone or other was elected President of City Council.

I did happen to see a second or two of O'Connor's ceremony when I was leaving to go back to work and I must say that there were a lot of empty chairs for an event that had 10,000 invitees and was open to the public.

That said, sincere wishes for GOOD LUCK to everyone who was sworn in yesterday -- they're going to need it.

The man who drives Rethugs and the MSM insane

From Media Matters:

During a discussion of potential 2008 presidential candidates on the January 1 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham referred to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) as "a sane Howard Dean, basically." Dean ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination and currently serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile, despite all the SPIN on Dean's competency/worth to the Party, Hotline on Call reports:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

So that's CRAZY LIKE A FOX, MOTHERFUCKERS!

Oh, and KOS reports:

I forgot to mention -- when Dean goes on fundraising trips to the states he lets the locals keep the money. He's raising money for the state parties, which isn't reflected in these numbers. The state parties love him for it. In the past, people like McAuliffe would come in and vaccum up money from the locals and send it to DC. This makes these numbers all that much more remarkable.

It also helps explain why Dean is so scary to the MSM and big money donors.

Some thoughts on Santorum from the other side of the state

Larry Kane in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The year 2006 harbors such volatility that both left- and right-wing partisans are walking on eggshells, with the real fear that extremism will eventually catch up with them at the ballot box.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) comes to mind. He has been backtracking on many issues. Notable among these is intelligent design, the quasireligious theory that Santorum has often heartily endorsed. But when the pro-ID side lost the Dover trial, Santorum distanced himself from the whole affair. (He still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools.)

I think Mr Kane is being to kind to Lil Ricky. In repub-speak, "backtracking = flip-flop" and should be pointed out continuously.

I'll say it again, Rick Santorum has flip-flopped on Intelligent Design. And he continues to do so, a point which Mr Kane raises (I know old pun, but I haven't had any breakfast yet and I'm still little woozy) when he writes that Santorum "still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools."

So let me see if I got this straight (and CAN I use that word when discussing our homophobic Senator??). He backs the concept, and he's written that he feels it's a valid scientific concept, but he doesn't want to see it taught in the public schools.

Why not? If he thinks it's valid, shouldn't he be fighting tooth and nail for the best possible education for the state's students?

Oh, that's right - it's not POLITICALLY viable these days. And Rick has an election to win, an opponent to smear, and his own record to distort.

Rick Santorum - a man of strict principles, until he needs to win an election.

IMPEACH

Democracy for Pittsburgh Meetup is Tonight!

Candidates speaking at tonight's meetup include:

CHUCK PENNACCHIO - candiate for US Senate!
http://www.chuck2006.com/

VALERIE MCDONALD ROBERTS - candidate for Lt. Governor!
www.valerieforpa.com

WILLIAM ANDERSON - candidate for State House District 24!

PAT SWEENEY - candidate for PGH City Council!

Also, our special guest is DAN FRANKEL to discuss efforts to get some good Democrats to run against currently unopposed incumbent Republicans!

Event Title: Monthly Meetup
Event Type: DFA-Link Meeting
Organized by: Democracy for Pittsburgh
Event Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Event Time: 7:00 PM
Venue Name: Mario’s South Side Saloon (upstairs)
Address: 1514 E Carson St
City: Pittsburgh
State: PA
Zip Code: 15203
Google Maps
Phone Number: 412-381-5610

You can R.S.V.P here.

And remember, if you haven't attended a meeting in either November or December, you NEED to attend tonight's meeting in order to qualify to vote for endorsments in February!

From Atrios

Looks like I've been in a quoting mood these past few days. Here's something I found at atrios:

2005 was the year that the president of the United States declared proudly that he had broken the law repeatedly and with full intention, that he had the power to do so whenever he wanted to, and that he would continue to do so whenever he determined it to be desirable. This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

The issue is simple: Bush has declared that one man has the right to make the law whenever, in his determination, national security warrants it. While even I can understand the necessity of broad executive powers in emergency situations, we aren't anywhere close to being in one of those. If Bush decides that personally shooting dissident bloggers or pesky journalists in the head is in fact necessary for national security, then no one can object. The fact that he has not, as far as we know, done any such thing does not matter in the slightest. By conferring dictatorial authority on himself Bush has declared that this is, in fact, a dictatorship even if he hasn't (yet) bothered using such authorities to the fullest of his claimed ability.

It's a mystery why Russert and the gang can giggle over their little roundtables, essentially ignoring what amounts to a military coup by our own president. He's asserted the authority of commander in chief over the entire country, and not just the military to which the constitution grants him such authority. Yes, we hope and generally assume that this temper tantrum by our boy king will pass in 3 years, that the his overreach will not have long lasting effects, that the crisis will pass.

2005 was the year the president declared he was the law, and few of our elite opinion makers and shapers bothered to notice, or care.

IMPEACH

Some Interesting KDKA News

I found this little two-paragrapher this morning:

Former PCNC "NightTalk" host John McIntire began "filling in for no one" last night, 9 to midnight, on KDKA-AM (1020).

It's believed McIntire will eventually take over that spot, held by Mike Romigh until a rash of firings at the radio station last week, but McIntire said no final decisions have been made, and for now he's just doing fill-in work.

Here, again, is the link to the KDKA contact page. If you feel so inclined, drop them a note to encourage them to make this permanent. I used the contact page to contact "programming" but I would guess that "management" would work OK, too.

IMPEACH

Happy New Year!

From a writer far far more talented than I could ever be:

I case you haven't noticed, as the result of a shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised, we now present ourselves to the rest of the world as proud, grinning, jut-jawed pitiless war-lovers with appallingly powerful weaponry--who stand unopposed.

In case you haven't noticed, we are now as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis once were.

And with good reason.

In case you haven't noticed, our unelected leaders have dehumanized millions and millions of human beings simply because of their religion and race. We wound 'em and kill 'em and torture 'em and imprison 'em all we want.

Piece of cake.

In case you haven't noticed, we also dehumanised our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class.

Send 'em anywhere. Make 'em do anything.

Piece of cake.

The O'Reilly Factor.

So I am a man without a country, except for the librarians and a Chicago paper called In These Times.

Before we attacked Iraq, the majestic New York Times guaranteed that there were weapons of mass destruction there.

Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human reace at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn't even seen the First World War. War is now a form of TV entertainment, and what made the First World War so particularly entertaining were two American inventions, barbed wire and the machine gun.

Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you could have something named after you?

Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people, too. I am a veteran of the Second World War and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine.

My last words? "Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse."

Napalm came from Harvard. Veritas!

Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler.

What can be said to our young people, now that psychopathic personalities, which is to say persons without consciences, without pity or shame, have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations, and made it all their own?

You can buy the book here (it's page 86-89).

IMPEACH

My New Year's Resolution:

I promise not to subvert the Constitution.

(Someone has to.)

IMPEACH

It's Sunday, So Jack Kelly's At It Again

Ok, here's what you do. First read Jack Kelly's column (and then come back here, or course).

Go ahead - I'll wait.

Ok, now that that's done, let's take a look at the article he's complaining about. It's here. First off, it's obvious that our friend Jack is over-reacting juuuust a lil'bit here. The article is 30 paragraphs long and there are only about 11 paragraphs on his friend Bill Roggio. Jack Kelly calls it slime and a "drive-by shooting." You can decide for yourself whether it is. Here's the text:

BAGHDAD -- Retired soldier Bill Roggio was a computer technician living in New Jersey less than two months ago when a Marine officer half a world away made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the news media, the Marines invited Roggio, 35, who writes a popular Web log about the military called "The Fourth Rail" (http://www.billroggio.com), to come cover the war from the front lines.

He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor. A few weeks later, he was posting dispatches from a remote outpost in western Anbar province, a hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.

"I was disenchanted with the reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there was much to the conflict that was missed," Roggio, who is currently stationed with Marines along the Syrian border, wrote in an e-mail response to written questions. "What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists or insurgents."

Roggio's arrival in Iraq comes amid what military commanders and analysts say is an increasingly aggressive battle for control over information about the conflict. Scrutiny of what the Pentagon calls information operations heightened late last month, when news reports revealed that the U.S. military was paying Iraqi journalists and news organizations to publish favorable stories written by soldiers, sometimes without disclosing the military's role in producing them.

There's more towards the end of the piece. In a section describing how Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, public affairs officer for the 2nd Marine Division, is utilizing his media resources:

Pool said he spends a growing portion of his time working to dispel what he calls erroneous tips from insurgents to reporters, including regular reports of Marines taken captive or helicopters downed.

"We now take all of these rumors seriously," he said. "We also use different [media] to get our messages out."

He said he recently began distributing his news releases to military bloggers and organizations such as veterans associations. The Marines also took a more direct approach by inviting Roggio to cover their operations.

"A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed," said Pool. "Overall, it has worked out really well."

And then finally:

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation, according to an entry on Roggio's blog. He and two other bloggers launched a new Web site a month ago (http://threatswatch.com), where he has posted many stories about his time with the Marines. Most provide detailed accounts of patrols or other outings on which he accompanied U.S. forces.

When news organizations began reporting about the insurgent activity in Ramadi on Dec. 1, Roggio posted "The Ramadi Debacle: The Media Bites on Al Qaeda Propaganda."

"The reported 'mini-Tet offensive' in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate," he wrote, citing information provided by Pool. "In fact, it has been anything but."

On Dec. 15, when Iraqis voted in nationwide elections, Roggio reported from Barwana, a Western town where turnout was far heavier than in Iraq's constitutional referendum held Oct. 15.

"Barwana, once part of Zarqawi self declared 'Islamic Republic of Iraq,' " he wrote, "is now the scene of al-Qaeda's greatest nightmare: Muslims exercising their constitutional right to chose their destiny."

And that's it. Where is the slime? Jack says of the piece that that there were "so many errors it should be an embarrassment" to the Post and then goes onto discuss what the Post got wrong. He fleshes out how the Marines became aware of Roggio (hmm, that's more like an ommission on the Post's part - but there's nothing in the piece that contradicts it) and so on. The Post gets wrong Roggio's present whereabouts but according to Roggio's blogs, he returned to the US on the 20th of December. The piece was published on the 26th. My guess is that whent he piece was written Roggio was in Iraq. How big of an error is that?

Jack also says the Post "misidentified from whom he (Roggio) had obtained press credentials," but it looks like we have a he said/he said situation here.

Here's what Roggio himself wrote on October 31 at billroggio.com:

In the three days since I announced my plans to travel to Iraq and embed with RCT-2 in Anbar province, the response has been phenomenal. I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute.

But by December 27 at threatswatch.org, he wrote:

I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization. A friend suggested I approach the American Enterprise Magazine, which is a periodical published by the American Enterprise Institute. We were unable to work out an agreement, so I searched for an alternative.

Another friend suggested I contact The Weekly Standard. Richard Starr was happy to help and provided the necessary credentials to embed. Also, Rod Breakenridge of the Canadian talk radio show The World Tonight kindly provided documentation for credentials as well. The two letters allowed me to successfully embed, and there were no questions about my credentials in Baghdad or elsewhere.

It looks, to me, like an error based on some sloppy writing of Mr Roggio. Perhaps the Post should have checked deeper into the press credentials, but once they happened onto his own blog saying that he's received the credentials thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, why should they have thought they'd need to dig further? In any case Kelly doesn't tell us what Roggio said in October - only that the Post misrepresented. Nice fact-checking, Jack.

In any case admits that:

The errors about Mr. Roggio's whereabouts and his media affiliation are minor.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. The next thing Jack Kelly complains about is the Washington Post's use of the term "retired" to describe Roggio. Jack writes (as does Roggio before him) that in order for Roggio to be "retired" from the military, he would have had to have spent 20 years there. As he was only in the service for about six (four in the Army Signal Corps and two in the National Guard) he can't be described as "retired." Whew, talk about hair-splitting!

Here's the thing. In this section (remember this is what Jack says the Post got wrong) he writes:

Col. Davis suggested to my friend Bill that he should come out to see the situation for himself. So Bill took a leave of absence from his job; raised $30,000 from readers of his blog (I contributed a small amount) for travel expenses, hazard insurance and to buy body armor; and obtained press credentials from The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine.

But wait, didn't the Post mention the $30,000 raised by Roggio's readers for the trip and body armor? How can that be something the Post got wrong? Of course Jack doesn't tell us that the Post mentioned it. So perhaps we are left to imply that they didn't? I'm just asking.

And I have no idea where Jack came up with this:

Mr. Finer and Mr. Struck implied through selective quotation that the embed process for Bill Roggio was different from that for "mainstream" journalists, and was contingent upon Bill writing favorable things. This was not so, says Mr. Roggio, who says he made this clear to Mr. Finer in their e-mail interview.

Where can this "implication" be found? Can someone show me? I'd love to see it.

Oh, the irony of Jack Kelly's limpid prose. He actually starts a paragraph with this:

Journalists don't like bloggers because they fact-check journalists.

While I am not sure I can call Jack Kelly a "journalist," I can make a safe guess that he can't like me very much.

Jack's "reporting" relies heavily on Roggio's own on-line complaint about the Washington Post article. Check it out here.

I gotta wonder: How much actual work did Jack Kelly actually put into writing this actual piece? Couldn't have spent much time actual fact-checking.

Meet the new Jack.
Same as the old Jack.

Happy New Year, Everybody!

IMPEACH

Not EVERYONE agreed with Bush on Iraq/WMD

I heard this on TV a short time ago and I wanted to make sure it made it here onto this blog.

Not EVERYONE believed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Distruction. Take a look at this. It's an interview between Wolf Blitzer and the Prince of Darkness himself, Robert Novak. About half way down the page we see this interchange:

BLITZER: We're going to get to the CIA leak and other issues in a few moments. Let's talk about some of the issues right now on the agenda, the president of the United States, George W. Bush, he's been in office now for five years, approaching his sixth year. You've been a good conservative all these years. Are you satisfied with the way he's conducted himself? Has he been a good conservative, from your perspective?

NOVAK: I think it's a mixed bag, Wolf. I think his tax policy has been terrific. I think we would be in the depths of the economy if it weren't for the fact that he took a tough stand, a courageous stand in cutting the capital gains cuts, tax, the dividend tax, other income taxes.

I think, like most -- all Republican presidents, he hasn't done enough to reduce the size of the government. Nobody wants to bite that bullet.

The thing that I took issue with him, I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq. It was a few of us conservatives that thought it was a bad idea. Once we get there, you can't bug out. You can't...

BLITZER: What was so bad about going in and getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

NOVAK: It was wonderful getting rid of him. I'd like to get rid of a lot of dictators, but we can't send the U.S. military around the world to get rid of every dictator.

The question was, was it necessary in the national interest?

BLITZER: Was it?

NOVAK: I didn't think it was. I didn't think it at the time. Because I said several times on this network that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

BLITZER: How did you know that and the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States were convinced that there were apparently?

NOVAK: Because my sources -- I don't run my own CIA. My sources didn't think there were, in the military, people I trusted.

And the indication by the inspectors indicated there was no weapons. But the point...

BLITZER: Do you -- let me...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Sure.

BLITZER: Was the president sold a bill of goods on Iraq?

NOVAK: I think they got in a mindset where they really wanted change of government, and then it was a need to find reasons for a change of government.[emphasis added]

So what have we learned?

1. Bob Novak didn't think that going into Iraq was in the national interest,
2. Bob Novak said there were no WMD in Iraq, and
3. Bob Novak said that the idea for regime change came first and then the administration went about finding reasons (which Novak knows to be untrue) to justify that regime change.

Hey, didn't the Downing Street Memo say something about how the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" or something?

Just checking.

So the next time anyone disagrees with me or the Other Political Junkie about Iraq/WMD, remember they're not just disagreeing with us, they're also disagreeing with The Prince of Darkness. They should do so at their own peril, I heard he can be a sonovabich.

IMPEACH

More Gristle for Gnawing

Via the dailykos, I found this op-ed this morning. The diarist at kos says:

My own local paper, bless their hearts, is finally coming around.

Here's the latest in LTE, Op-Ed, etc. from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, in the east end of Los Angeles County, where a notoriously conservative editorial staff has finally HAD ENOUGH!

Ok, then. What does the editorial from this "notoriously conservative" staff have to say?

Let's take a look. First at a real lie from our president:

MARK Twain, prophet that he was, once decried a woeful decay in the fine art of lying. Judging by the fibs of recent presidents, the decay continues.

One of the first rules of skilled fibbing is to avoid leaving evidence lying around that might expose your deception. President Bush has left evidence on the White House Web site. There we can see Bush promoting the Patriot Act at an April 2004 appearance in Buffalo and assuring us that his administration does not conduct wiretaps on Americans without court approval.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order," he says. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think `Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Knowing what we know now, that sounds like the biggest presidential whopper since Bill Clinton assured us that he did not have "sexual relations with that woman."

Two years before Buffalo, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to turn its mighty electronic ears on thousands of phone calls and e-mails between the United States and abroad without bothering to get a warrant. He does not deny violating the now-famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Instead, he argued in a news conference following the disclosures by The New York Times, that he does not have to obey the FISA.

At least when Clinton uttered the now infamous "I did not have sexual relations..." line, our civil liberties were not at risk. But on the other hand to the sex-obsessed, extra-marital blowjobs are so much worse than warrantless electronic surveillances.

In any case, this is followed by an interesting rhetorical question:

He argues, echoing other presidents, that the special circumstances of the "war on terror" authorize him to take any steps he needs to keep Americans safe. But, one wonders, if the president can do whatever he wants, why do we need a Patriot Act?

Indeed, isn't that the reason the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution and Bill of Rights? To set limits on the power of the government? If Bush can do whatever he wants in his war on terror, why do we even need the Constitution?

He's only trying to protect us, right? None of us wants to see another 9/11, right? It follows that anyone who makes it harder for him to protect us from another 9/11 and if (god forbid) another 9/11 were to occur, that person would be partly responsible for that attack, right? In fact he (or she, in the case of Maria) would have actually helped the attack to occur, right? And isn't aiding and abetting The Enemy treason? So why shouldn't Our President just lock up all the traitors who are making it harder for him to protect the rest of us from another 9/11? They're just as bad as the terrorists, aren't they?

Ok, and now coming back to reality...

The end is the real kicker for the op-ed:

When Clinton did not like FISA law, he sought changes from Congress. Bush chose instead to defy the law and consult privately with a few members of the Senate. At least one of them, West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, says the White House ignored his serious concerns.

Which brings us back to the central question Bush has yet to answer: Why did he not follow the laws that Congress has passed?

The great balance of liberty versus national security should not be a partisan issue. Many principled conservatives have raised this issue, as they should. For those who still are not sure, I offer this advice: Don't grant powers to President Bush that you would not want to grant to President Hillary Clinton.[emphasis added]

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to see Senator Clinton in the Oval Office, but the point is well taken.

If the President can do whatever he (or she) wants in this never ending war on terror, the United States of America will cease to be a nation of laws, but a nation of one man.

IMPEACH

John Dean on Bush: Impeachable

Some more gristle for the right-thinking members of God's Own Party to gnaw on. John Dean in writing at findlaw.com says this:

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

It's a few paragraphs down the page. I wanted to get to the good part (about the impeachable acts of the 43rd President of the United States of America) right away. But how does Dean support that point, you ask? Here you go:

Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.

Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.

Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.

The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.[emphasis added]

See kids? The issue is not, as Fred Honsberger put it this afternoon on his radio show, about making sure the President can "go after known terrorists" but whether the president, who took an oath to "Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,"actually broke the law while "going after the terrorists." The Honzman's clear implication, of course, is that we traitors who are complaining about Bush really don't want him to "go after the terrorists." We're the traitors for demanding that he follow the Constitution.

Dean continues:

No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.

What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.

I've heard an argument bubble up out of the cesspool of offensive evasions that pass for republican debating points these days. Some right wing blowhard will spout that "lib'ruls used to complain that Bush didn't do enough to defend the country before 9/11 (he/she/Ann Coulter might even bring up the PDB from August, 2001 at this point) and now they're complaining that he's doing too much!"

Allow me to reiterate: it's not about anything other than the fact that George Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America instructed the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on citizens of the United States of America, in direct violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment.

I'll keep saying it until it happens:

IMPEACH

Torturing Children: Defy the Gag Order on this Information

From KOS:

The British government is trying to prevent the publication of memos which detail how information procured by torture in Uzbekistan is being used by the US and the UK. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and author of the memos Craig Murray explains:

With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition, the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign torturers.

The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig Murray remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

In a big "fuck you" to the British government, UK bloggers have done a coordinated leak of the documents being supressed today.

In case those sites are shut down by the British government, Kos has republished the documents here.

They contain such "gems" as this:

At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family’s links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

Go read them for yourself.

Santorum to Speak at Justice Sunday III!

Take a look.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has joined the list of distinguished speakers for Family Research Council's simulcast television program, "Justice Sunday III -- Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land!" The program is set for Sunday, Jan. 8 at Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and will broadcast live in churches across the nation in addition to being carried on hundreds of radio stations, via satellite and webcast on http://www.justicesunday.com . Justice Sunday III will help ensure that the voices of people of faith are heard in the great national debate on the courts and the future of our country.

I wonder if they'll ask him about his flip-flop on Intelligent Design.

IMPEACH

Shake-up at KDKA!

I just read this a few minutes ago.

Three of KDKA Radio's primary on-air hosts -- Mike Pintek, Paul Alexander and Mike Romigh -- have been let go in a staff shake-up.

The changes, the first phase of an extensive overhaul at the news/talk station, also included a pink slip for news reporter Kyle Anthony.

It's never good news to hear that someone's lost a job (any chance of slipping the next pink slip to Fred Honsberger?), but I am curious to see how this will change things over at KDKA.

I have to admit, I've never been much of a fan of Mike Romigh. There were many times when I'd cringe hearing him "debate" Fred Honsberger on Thursay afternoons. There was so much more he could have said to The Honzman (heck, he coulda just looked here) that I had to wonder whether his heart was really in the fight in the first place.

In any event, I wish all those guys well. I am sure they'll land on their feet.

But the REALLY interesting part of the article is tucked in the end:

One possibility for the 8 p.m. to midnight shift previously held by Mr. Romigh is John McIntire. Mr. Clark said that if Mr. McIntire, who hosts a weekly Saturday night show on KDKA, was interested in the slot, "we would consider him, but no final decision has been made."

YES, YES, YES!

HIRE McINTIRE!

(I know they already employ John McIntire for the Saturday 7-12 slot. So the cry to "hire McIntire" is a bit redundant. It rhymes so well, though. Doncha think??)

Here's the link to the KDKARadio contact page. If you want to hear a real lefty voice on the air in Pittsburgh, contact KDKA and tell them the best thing they could do for the 8-12 slot would be to HIRE MCINTIRE.

Let us know what they say. I'll try to keep everyone posted on whatever I know.

David

PS

IMPEACH

THEY NEED YOUR HELP NOW!

Democracy for Pittsburgh (local coalition group for Democracy for America) usually features candidate forums at every meetup. The December meeting featured a few candidates who really stood out (in my humble opinion). I mention it now because December 31st is nearly upon us and this is your last chance to make a contribution to candidates for the 2005 year.

I therefore ask you to consider contributing anything that you can to any or all of the following candidates:


Georgia Berner, Candidate running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 4th Congressional District (www.georgiaberner.com )

Georgia Berner is an innovative CEO of a prominent and growing manufacturing company in New Castle, PA who is running for Congress in Pennsylvania's fourth congressional district against Melissa Hart (a horrid little conservative Republican who is for torture and corruption). Georgia's campaign is really gaining momentum and she could really use your help in keeping that momentum going. (Did I mention that Georgia is a pro-choice candidate, one of the few, if not the only one running in this race?) I was impressed with Georgia's down to earth style and common sense approach -- plus, this is a woman who knows how to CREATE JOBS.
DONATE TO GEORGIA BERNER HERE!


Tom Kovach, Candidate running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District (www.kovachforcongress.com)

Tom Kovach is part of a growing trend of "Fighting Dems" (Navy Vet). He's running a real grassroots campaign. As he puts it, "This is the people's campaign. We aren't interested in support or donations from big business and WILL show special interests that we, the people, can build a campaign and win without the big bucks shoveled out to our opponent by the likes of Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay. We are strong, experienced grassroots Democrats who want to send a message to our party that Dems shouldn't try to pace the Republicans in fundraising. Campaigning can be done with quarters and we'll prove it!" His issues page is heavy on restoring our economic well being and supporting a safe, fast and fair exit strategy for Iraq. Take my word for it that Tom's a dynamic speaker -- or better still, meet him yourself.
DONATE TO TOM KOVACH HERE!


William Sargent, Candidate for State House in the 42nd Legislative District of Pennsylvania, (www.votesargent.com)

William Sargent is one more "Fighting Dem" (He flew missions over Afghanistan and Iraq and is currently a Reservist). William intends to be a true “CITIZEN LEGISLATOR.” As he puts it, “Professional politicians have run Harrisburg for far too long, and the time has come to make a change. As an Air Force Reservist I represented the United States as a citizen soldier, and when elected I will serve my district as a citizen legislator, not a politician. As Pennsylvanians, we are in the midst of a crippling economic crisis stemming from ever-increasing property taxes, stagnant local and national economies, a decline in manufacturing jobs, and the rising cost of energy. We can no longer afford ineffectual leadership in Harrisburg.” I found him to be a riveting speaker.
DONATE TO WILLIAM SARGENT AT: PO BOX 11942, Mt Lebanon, PA 15228


Steve Karas, Candidate for State House in the 34th Legislative District of Pennsylvania, (www.karasforpahouse34.zoomshare.com)

Steve Karas is a member of Democracy for Pittsburgh and you can read his platform here. It includes such items as reducing both the benefits and size of the legislature to reasonable levels and allowing any citizen to gather signatures and offer ballot referendums. Steve's a great guy who can use your support.
DONATE TO STEVE KARAS: Contact him at gbh65@verizon.net


Chuck Pennacchio, Candidate for U.S. Senate -- Pennsylvania, (www.chuck2006.com)

And, if you've read this blog at all, you know I support CHUCK PENNACCHIO for US Senate. Pennacchio is everything that Bobby Casey, Jr. is not: a true progressive. He's the Blue State Candidate that we need for the Blue State of Pennsylvania (Poll shows Casey's support will plummet as voters learn he opposes choice).

YOU CAN HEAR CHUCK SPEAK AT DfP'S JANUARY MEETUP:

Event Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Event Time: 7:00 PM
Venue Name: Mario’s South Side Saloon (upstairs)
Address: 1514 E Carson St
City: Pittsburgh
State: PA
Zip Code: 15203
R.S.V.P. for this meeting here.
DONATE TO CHUCK PENNACCHIO HERE!

******************

UPDATE: 2 Political Junkies is NOT Democracy for Pittsburgh's blog. 2PJ is David's and my blog. David is free to post all he wants for whomever he wants (even Bob "I put my own self to sleep when I speak" Casey if he chooses to).

The website for Democracy for Pittsburgh is:
http://www.pghdfa.org/blog/

If you go there you'll notice that I blog there as well. HOWEVER, when I do blog there, I feel that I am blogging on behalf of the group and so I do not personally advocate on behalf of any candidates there. Once a candidate is endorsed by the group, then and only then, do I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to push for particular candidates on DfP's website. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Simple Math

I want one!



Impeach

Absolutely Funny

About.com is saluting the year in political humor here. They have such categories as The 25 Dumbest Media Quotes of 2005 and the Top 10 Bushisms of 2005

I think that I may have to agree with their #1 Bushism as my favorite as well:

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

Although this is a close second:

"I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" --in a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting, September 14, 2005

However, I must say that in the category of The Funniest Pictures of 2005, I do have an Absolute favorite:

CLICK HERE
(Gee, I sure hope they don't get some kind of cease and desist letter for posting that.)

Bob Barr on Bush

Take a look at this op-ed from former Congressman Bob Barr.

His opening:

Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications. [emphasis added]

Like his fellow liberals, Bob Barr must hate George Bush so much that he'll say anything to try to bring down his administration.

Why is Bob Barr seeking to undermine our President and our resolve? Doesn't he know we're at war?

He must be some sort of terrorist sympathizer.

Impeach

Is there anything that Bush Can't F up? Illegal wiretaps may allow terrorists to go free

From the New York Times:

Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts

Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises "fascinating and difficult questions," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions."

[snip]

Government officials with knowledge of the program have not ruled out the possibility that it was used in other criminal cases, and a number of defense lawyers said in interviews that circumstantial evidence had led them to question whether the security agency identified their clients through wiretaps.

The first challenge is likely to come in Florida, where lawyers for two men charged with Jose Padilla, who is jailed as an enemy combatant, plan to file a motion as early as next week to determine if the N.S.A. program was used to gain incriminating information on their clients and their suspected ties to Al Qaeda. Kenneth Swartz, one of the lawyers in the case, said, "I think they absolutely have an obligation to tell us" whether the agency was wiretapping the defendants.

[snip]

"If I'm a defense attorney," one prosecutor said, "the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.' "

You see, kiddies, when you break the law and subvert the Constitution all kinds of bad things happen.

Do I need to remind anyone that Clinton actually caught, tried and convicted those who bombed the WTC in 93?

Meanwhile, The Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight may have hopelessly damaged cases against terrorists by their insistence on doing everything their way, Constitution and laws be damned.

So I ask:

What can't Bush fuck up???