Robert Novak's moronic analysis (see earlier post) of Richard Clarke's motivations were chronicled on the Daily Show a few days ago- check it out.

Here's the Letterman clip from Monday's show

The White House claimed that as funny as the kid was, he was edited in to the speech by Letterman staffers. Here's Dave's reaction to that on Tuesday.


UPDATE:
Mirrors, we get Mirrors!

Mirror (First Video)
Mirror (Second Video)
Thanks Peter!

Mirror (both files)
Thanks Brendan!

Mirror (first clip)
Thanks Dubbya!

Thanks Ini!

Now where the heck are those darn WMDs?

Nope... not over here.

The Air America web site claims it's going to be streaming on the internet- I would like to hear the O'Franken Factor's first day on the air but these things always crash the first day...

Update- 11:00 AM:
It's working. Woo.

The Zero Spin Zone is on!
Why's it called The O'Franken Factor? "To annoy and bait Bill O'Reilly."

Update- 11:03 AM:
Okay- two minutes in and the stream died. It was fun while it lasted.

Update- 11:05 AM:
Was able to connect again- there's a chick. I love chicks. She claims she's a journalist, Al's an Infotainer.
Al vows not to use his program to sell his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

Update- 11:11 AM:
I'm getting dropped about every two minutes- so far it's been entertaining, if a bit disjointed. (joke) Here's hoping someone is ripping this on XM.

Last Wednesday Wolf Blitzer asked White House correspondent John King if White House officials were pushing any "weird aspects" of Richard Clarke's life which would hurt his credibility. There have been a lot of theories as to what Blitzer was talking about, mainly centering on Clarke being unmarried. When Paul Krugman mentioned it in his latest column Blitzer finally responded. He claims he was talking about an interview he had with James Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor in which Wilkinson said:

Let me also point something. If you look in this book, you find interesting things such as reported in "The Washington Post" this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and how bin Laden has some sort of mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of "X-Files" stuff.

And what I'd say is, this is a man who was in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who was supposed to be focused on that. And he was focused on meetings.

I think he misspoke there at the end- the one thing Clarke couldn't get with Bush was a meeting on counter-terrorism.

As for the "X-Files" allegations- here's the quote from the book, the topic is the inevitable invasion of Iraq:

It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'

In other words, attacking Iraq is exactly what Osama wanted. Anyone who reads that as Clarke claiming there was actual mind control going on is a moron. Yes, you heard me- James Wilkinson is a moron. Wolf Blitzer is just another empty headed anchor, regurgitating the revolting White House spin.

Condi finally changed her mind- she's testifying. I just heard a republican hack on CNN claim that this was the White House's plan all along, the delay was just a way of allowing Condi the last word. These people are true believers, aren't they? Ugh...

WASHINGTON (AP) - There is no ironclad legal doctrine buttressing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's refusal to testify publicly before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, law experts said Monday.

Rice already has spoken to the commission in private. But she says public testimony is protected by executive privilege. That principle says presidential advisers cannot be legally forced to disclose their confidential communications if that would adversely affect the operations of the executive branch.

It is rare for White House advisers to testify publicly before Congress or congressionally appointed panels like the Sept. 11 commission. But exceptions exist, and legal scholars say they poke holes in Rice's argument.

She also has spoken openly to the media about the attacks and the advice she offered President Bush about terrorism.

``The whole idea of executive privilege is that the president's advisers should be able to give advice in confidence,'' said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University. ``That means the advice should be kept confidential. But she's talked to everybody under the sun.

more...

I linked the words "hairy-knuckled" with Bill O'Reilly's web site a few weeks ago on our Lies of Bill O'Reilly section and I just noticed that if you type in the phrase in google O'Reilly is number one.

So, in that spirit, here are some links that seem appropriate-

O'Reilly Links:
blotchy
right-wing talk show host
balding right-wing talk show host
blotchy right-wing talk show host
balding, blotchy right-wing talk show host

Bush Links:
worst president ever
unelectable
coked up until his forties
pretzel
evil incarnate
dumbest president ever
wealthy

You're right, can't forget
miserable failure

In unrelated news, Fox News also shut down...

Odd thought tonight: Couldn't the Bush Administration neutralize Dick Clarke's revelations by using the, "Sept. 11 changed everything line"? This may be turning into a case of the coverup being the scandal, not any decision itself. Why isn't Condi testifying? Why don't the Bushies say nobody could have prevented Sept. 11 because it was unimaginable? Instead, it's deny and confront -- all front page fodder that plays directly into the Snowboard-in-Chief's hands. I'm not sure what happened, but the Bush team has fallen apart in the past six months. Such is the harsh light of the truth.

Are they trying to prove the president's advisors hype positives and minimize negatives for the president? There's a revelation... when are arrest warrants going to be issued?

This all adds up to one thing: DESPERATION

That's the name of Al Franken's new radio show.

That's fucking awesome.

Crossfire yesterday:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

What's not in the transcript is the shock registering on everyones face as Novak accused Clarke of being a racist- in fact, Novak had to repeat the question because Emanuel (even armed with a TiVo I had to run it back to make sure...) didn't believe what he was hearing.

Novak is a tired old man, he drools his way through a couple episodes of Crossfire a week- it's time for CNN to lose this guy, he's a senile old man who's dementia has obviously destroyed any sense of judgment or decency he had- assuming he had any to begin with.

Fire him.

From the opening statement:

I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.

I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.

To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.

And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take your questions.

To formerly anonymous background briefings:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story.

The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them.

In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did.

I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

...and don't forget the Bush's response (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing:

CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that the Cole case was still out there and that by now, in January of 2001, CIA had finally gotten around to saying it was an Al Qaida attack, and that therefore there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack.

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition? And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch."

I didn't think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was Al Qaida, should have responded.

If you didn't see it, read the transcript.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today about the Pledge of Allegiance- specifically the phrase, "under God" which was added to the pledge in the '50's so our kids wouldn't turn in to soulless commies.

My thinking is this: A certain percentage of people in this country don't believe in God. When their children are instructed by their school to recite a pledge daily that goes against their religion, (or lack thereof) it's an undeniable violation of their first amendment rights. The opposing argument goes that a specific religion isn't endorsed- well, "God" or "No God" is as specific as it needs to get- if you don't believe in God and are told to repeat that we are one nation under the-thing-you-don't-believe-in you can see where there's an undeniable religious component.

The Bush administration's argument on this issue has been that the reference to God isn't religious, it's an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage." Unfortunately this argument doesn't hold much weight- you don't have to look far to see the founding father's opinions on religion.

The French are banning religious head scarves warn by Muslim students in schools. That's going way too far- and that's something religious people are worried about happening here- stomping out of all religion. That type of thing can't happen here because of the first amendment. It's a two way street.

The bottom line is this- when you mix religion and government you're asking for trouble. Religion has caused more war and unnecessary death than any other cause in the history of man. It's an unfortunate, yet undeniable fact.

Treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. Our government doesn't need God to tell us that, it's common sense. God has her place, but it's not overseeing the Federal government (specifically dictating foreign policy to the president.)

Though it may be unpopular, restoring the pledge to its original form is the only logical option to the Supreme Court. If the Court reverses the lower court's decision it will provide further proof of this court's obvious corruption.

Quack quack.

WASHINGTON – Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who painted an unflattering portrait of President Bush in a book in January, received 140 government documents for the book that should not have been released after he left office, the Treasury Department's inspector general says.

The report Monday from Jeffrey Rush Jr. said that no federal laws had been violated in the release of the documents but that Treasury needed to improve the way it handled sensitive documents.

Read the book. You're not breaking federal law.

According to the White House, Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" on terrorism, but none the less, the White House acted on all of Clarke's recommendations.

Claiming Clarke was out of the loop on terrorism when he was the top counter-terrorism official at the White House is more of an indictment of the administration than Clarke. Cheney implied yesterday on the Limbaugh show that Clarke had been demoted, working in Cybersecurity instead of being the head man who would have been involved in general terrorism. How could Clarke know anything about 9/11 if he was working on Cyberterrorism? Simple- he didn't switch jobs until well after 9/11. Limbaugh's followers are now left with the mistaken impression that Clarke was demoted when Bush took office. Certainly one of many pieces of misinformation Limbaugh's listeners were fed yesterday.

The most obvious (and laughable) result of this declaration is that they can no longer scape-goat Clarke for 9/11 because he was out of the loop, right?

Calling Clarke's book a partisan attack doesn't wash either- he worked for two Republican White Houses before he worked for Clinton. He was a registered Republican. He would have been shooed out the door with the Clinton administration if it had been any other way.

The funny thing is, with all the bluster from the White House- those of us who have been paying attention knew all this stuff already. Clarke is just adding more detail.

We knew that the White House wanted to take Saddam out from day one
We knew September 11th was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.
We knew Iraq wasn't a threat to us.
We knew the White House couldn't prove a connection between Saddam and Osama.
We knew they were lying the whole time.

Can the Bush White House keep all these deceptions from the American public past the November elections? I keep seeing these things months before they're printed in the Times or the Post- why the hell is that? When a steady stream of lies is just a way of life at the White House it's time to clean house.

How many lives will we allow the White House to destroy in order to keep their dirty laundry under wraps?

As they try to destroy Clarke it's worth noting that the White House delayed publication of his book for three months and now is complaining about the "suspicious timing" of it's release. These guys have no shame.

This is about the freedom to be left alone. Ask yourself, is it okay that you can be stopped on the street and accosted by government agents demanding that you identify yourself to them for no reason? If that's okay is it all right if we just go ahead and implant RF chips in everyone's heads at birth? That way the authorities won't even need to ask... They'll just know where you are at all times, never a need to ask you for ID again- think about the convenience! You go, Supreme Court! It's going to take the court's cooperation to get us to that Orwellian future we've all been looking forward to!

It's about a constitutional watershed and here's why: Hiibel was, you'll remember, the drunken cowboy parked alongside a Nevada highway who refused to reveal his identity to a policeman, after being told plainly that the cop was "investigating an investigation." Actually, the police had received a call describing Hiibel's truck and location and saying that a couple were apparently having a fight inside. So, yes, the policeman had a reasonable suspicion when he approached Hiibel. But he didn't share that information with the suspect.

The question for the Supreme Court this month is whether the police could demand Hiibel's identity, and without more than his refusal, arrest the cowboy for obstructing their work. Lithwick says, in effect, if the police could have frisked Hiibel on reasonable suspicion, which they probably could, then what's in a name, and why not arrest him for refusing to give it? She also chides the "hysterical" friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides, which see this as an apocalyptic constitutional moment.

Justice Scalia has released this memorandum responding to the petition from the Sierra Club asking him to recuse himself from Dick Cheney's upcoming "Secret Energy Task Force" case. It's interesting reading- he insists his close friendship with Dick Cheney will not interfere with ruling in favor of Dick Cheney.

Another money quote: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined."

All I can say in response to that is, "Bush v. Gore." You're the ones who made it reasonable to think the Supreme Court of the United States had been corrupted by politics. Shame on you, Mr. Scalia. Taking hunting trips with your co-conspirator is just rubbing the American People's noses in it.

In an article from right-wing web site NewsMax.com they lead off with a factual error-

Is "shock jock" Howard Stern's voice powerful enough to affect the upcoming presidential election to the extent of sending President Bush packing?

That's what the Boston Globe wants to know, explaining that the liberal talk show host the newspaper describes as a "stripper aficionado, champion of misfits everywhere, all-purpose radio provocateur," has turned his raunchy show into a Bush-bashing marathon.

Calling Stern a liberal is just factually incorrect and shows how poorly researched this article is. Reading through it you get the sense that there's no actual original reporting, just quotes from other articles and recontextualized to slant to the right. Did I just make up a new word? In any case, the vast majority of the candidates Stern has supported have been from the Republic party. (They call Democratic Party the "Democrat Party"- Two can play at that game...)

Because of that glaring mistatement of fact it's very hard to take anything in the article seriously, but then again, since the article appears on NewsMax it's very hard to take any article seriously.

... but we can't say who.
My guess?

Ralph Malph from Happy Days.

Here's hoping finally focusing on the real enemy is finally paying off. We should have been so focused a year ago, but we had that diversion to take care of...

Update
Okay, it's looking less and less like it's not Ralph Malph but instead Ayman al-Zawahiri. Again, NOT Ralph Malph- Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Al Sharpton on today's Crossfire:

"Let me tell you the quality difference between the nominee John Kerry in 2004 and the nominee George Bush in 2000. In 2004, you incorrectly asked John Kerry to name the foreign leaders that would support him because he never said that in the beginning. In 2000, we couldn't get George Bush to name a foreign leader. He couldn't remember their names, period."

Iraq On The Record- Here you will find a database of 237 specific misleading statments about the threat posed by Iraq made by President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Somebody finally got their shit together. Woo.

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have lost credibility, the world is not safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power and it was clear 10 months ago that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And that's just the first sentence...
Link

"A bill to allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court"

The beauty of this bill is that when the Supreme Court rules that this law is unconstitutional the congress can reverse it. No more checks and balances.

It's called a telephone, you fucking retards.

UPDATE
It's called being misquoted, you fucking retards. The pool reporter who transcribed the conversation messed up- he wrote 'foreign leaders" instead of "more leaders" by mistake.
Link
Ha ha.

Anybody remember when Colin Powell was the non-evil one in the administration? You remember, before he lied to the UN... wigged out on a congressman... and threw a hissy fit at that congressional staffer?

How evil is this?

U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: March 15, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.

Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law.

In a report to Congress last week, the lawyers said those fliers and advertisements were legal, despite "notable omissions and other weaknesses." Administration officials said the television news segments were also a legal, effective way to educate beneficiaries.

Gary L. Kepplinger, deputy general counsel of the accounting office, said, "We are actively considering some follow-up work related to the materials we received from the Department of Health and Human Services."

One question is whether the government might mislead viewers by concealing the source of the Medicare videos, which have been broadcast by stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.

More

What!?! Is he crazy? Right near the end and he quits???

There's an odd conversation going on talk radio this morning. Charlie Sykes, in Milwaukee, posed the question about who the "real winner" was in Spain's ouster of a pro-Iraq war government. Caller after caller (the good people of Milwaukee are known for their foreign policy expertise) said that al Qaida was the big winner. They then transitioned into a discussion about the Iraq war and how we overthrew Saddam and improved life in the Middle East. Completely lost is the well-established fact that al Qaida and Iraq are not related! We might as well be talking al Qaida and North Korea or al Qaida and France. If the Bushies actually focused on winning the war on terrorism (to the tune more than $100 billion), rather than settling poppy's old scores, maybe we would have made the world a safer place. As it is, we've used a Third-World nation as a bombing field (Afghanistan) and thrown out an impotent prima donna who, sadly, presided over one of the most stable governments in the Middle East.
The kicker to the whole discussion is people openly wondering how the U.S. would respond to a terrorist attack right before the election. Lots of people are saying they would lineup behind el presidente -- there's a scary thought with Bush trailing in the polls.

That's former State Department intelligence officer Greg Thielmann talking to Inter Press Service News Agency about Douglas Feith's leaked briefing papers on Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. Feith's Office of Special Projects was installed by the Bush administration inside the Pentagon and tasked with inventing reasons, propaganda, and evidence to justify invading Iraq.

[The briefing] consisted of 50 excerpts taken from raw, mostly uncorroborated intelligence reports from sources of varying reliability from 1990 to 2002, which purported to show an operational relationship between the captured leader and the group.

But when it was published, former intelligence officials dismissed the work as amateurish, unsubstantiated and indicative, even if most of the allegations were true, of the absence of any operative relationship.

"This is meant to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated." I repeat the quote because it's so true.

A few weeks ago the briefing was displayed as indisputable proof that Saddam dang near was Osama after all. Nobody bought it- except those referred to in that quote.

...and Kerry's weak on defense???

Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A04

President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."


In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress." The NRO, which designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated that amount of excess funds.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush campaign is demanding an apology from Sen. John Kerry after the presumptive Democratic nominee called his Republican opponents the "most crooked ... lying group of people I've ever seen."

A Kerry spokesman later said the senator wasn't referring to the president but to those behind what he characterized as a GOP attack "machine."

I would urge Kerry to apologize if what he said wasn't true. Unfortunately for the Bush campaign, they probably are the most crooked group Kerry's ever seen. See an example here.

"We call on Senator Kerry to apologize to the American people for this negative attack," Racicot said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

We call on Marc Racicot to go fuck himself.... and stop lying about your guy's military record.

In a word- Blogs.

The media stuck with the Bush bandwagon through the first three years of his term, through a disastrous war and one tax-cut-motivated lie after another (tax cuts create jobs! said the Republicans after presiding over the loss of 2.4 million jobs).

But something funny happened in 2003. The media landscape shifted. Suddenly, the Internet became a 24/7 oppo research and fact checking tool. The Republicans remain wilfully ignorant of their online would-be allies. The Democratic Party -- outgunned, outmanned, outfinanced, and out-of-power -- was not so myopic.

Hardly a day goes by when I don't see a blog-inspired email blasted out by some party functionary, be it the DSCC, DCCC, DNC or affiliated organizations. Those institutions -- the very core of the "Democratic Party Establishment" -- are linking to blogs at increased rates. And the results speak for themselves.

Check out Sean Hannity closing out his "fair and balanced" show. What a joke.

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

Rove, through an aide, declined to comment for this story. The White House also declined comment, referring any further inquiries to the Department of Justice because of the ongoing criminal investigation.


Oh, now it all makes sense. Silly me, I thought it was illegal to discuss covert CIA agents with journalists and political consultants. I must have forgotten the "legitimate-means-to- counter-politically-motivated-criticism-of-the-Bush-administration" exception in our laws on international espionage. My bad.

Krugman has this one:

Brad Delong has this:

Who says the predictions have been wildly optimistic? Oh yeah... everyone.

I wonder if this one is as easy to violate as ours is...

Senator John McCain wants Bush to grant subpoena powers the commission investigating September 11th intelligence failures and he wants to investigate how the intelligence was misused by those rushing to war. That's two things Bush doesn't want- and doing things that Bush doesn't want gets you shit-canned. (See Howard Stern.)

Now the Republican smear machine is after him, calling his quest for a thorough investigation, "sour grapes" from the 2000 primaries where Bush's campaign against McCain turned negative. Damn these people are evil.

Meanwhile Chuck Robb (Democrat) apparently promised Bush before he was appointed that he wouldn't allow the commission to look at how the administration misused the intelligence to justify invasion. Maybe it was a compromise to get on the commission, maybe not- what the article makes clear is that Chuck's position on the commission is tenuous- he is in an incredibly weak position. If he were bringing up any of these issues himself he'd be stripped of his appointment immediately.

I disagree with McCain's politics. It's been sickening these last few years watching him be a toady for Bush, but in the end I know he's an honorable man who knows what's right and what's wrong. I just hope he's got enough steam to see this through.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The serious news of the day - from Saddam Hussein's spider hole to Medicare to gay marriage - served as fodder for song, dance and silly dress-up Saturday night in the Gridiron dinner, a 119-year tradition of Washington journalism.

In the most unusual turn of this year's satirical script, syndicated columnist Robert Novak - who sparked a federal investigation by printing the name of an undercover CIA officer - was taking the stage as that CIA officer's disgruntled husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Dressed as Wilson in top hat and cutaway coat, Novak sings of himself: "Novak had a secret source ... so he outed a girl spy the way princes of darkness do. ... Now John Ashcroft asks Bob who and how, could be headed to the old hoosegow."

A federal grand jury is probing whether someone in the Bush administration leaked the CIA officer's identity, possibly a felony. Novak hasn't commented on the investigation - until the Gridiron, in song.


What a fucker ... I wonder if he sang these lyrics (to Under the Bridge):

Sometimes I piss off really powerful people
Sometimes I just have to tell the truth
But I never suspected that the motherfuckers
Would go after my wife, reveal her name so she'd die

Another brilliant cartoon by Robert Smigel played on SNL last night. The guy's a genius, what more is there to say?
Link

I've taken the liberty of cutting a new ad for George W. Bush's election campaign with the theme of September 11th. Though my version contains fewer flag-draped corpses than previous W election ads, I think I was able to nail the sentiment- "Lots of people died that day. That's why you should vote for me. Now, watch this drive."

Link

Rory O'Connor writes:

Now it becomes clear that O'Reilly is a thief as well, who stole an exclusive investigative story broken in the pages of the recently launched free daily amNewYork, and presented it as his own. The front page exclusive, which concerned a charity fund organized to reopen Lady Liberty, ran on February 2. It revealed that although the fund raised $40 million annually, officials were using the money for minor maintenance instead of the $7 million in repairs necessary to reopen the monument to the public.

Two weeks later O'Reilly's researcher, Susan Beachy, called amNewYork and asked for a copy of the article. Alex Storozynski, amNewYork editor, followed up with O'Reilly's producer Rich McCue, who told him, "We know you guys broke this story. We haven't seen it anywhere else."

To Storozynski's surprise, however, no mention was made of his newspaper when the story appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. Instead O'Reilly took credit for it himself. As Storozynski later wrote to O'Reilly, "Even the Daily News has given us credit when we break a story, and they are one of our competitors."

Also check out the article for Rory's first hand experience going on the O'Reilly show and being shit-canned at the last moment because he wouldn't take an extreme position.

WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Huh? Read on...

A little-known group

It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

These are all political folks! How can they claim the intelligence wasn't politicized when the people working on strategy for Iraq were political aides???

You bet your sweet ass this is "Developing..."

Hrm... I'm not going to wish for his death or anything- I'm not totally evil. Just hoping he'll retire. Today.

The administration claimed that their last round of tax cuts would create 306,000 new jobs per month- they haven't come near that number yet.

This month's number is 21,000 and recent months of meager growth have all been revised downward. So, as bad as it is, it's worse than previously thought.

What the fuck have we been doing for three years? Now we're looking hard? What the fuck?

Using the deaths of thousands for a campaign ad is sick. I would expect nothing less from these people.

September 11th was this administration's most catastrophic failure. To urge people to reelect the president using images from that day is disgusting. Hopefully the irony won't be lost on the American public.

Howard Stern has been talking the last few days about a plot from within the FCC to get him off the air before election season heats up. He believes this is a scheme put together by Republican thugs who are systematically silencing critics of the president in the hopes of guaranteeing a victory in November.

The connections between George W. Bush and Clear Channel communications are well documented:

Clear Channel's Vice Chairman made GWB a millionaire.

Clear Channel has sponsored countless Pro War Rallies which were indistinguishable from Pro-Bush rallies.

Clear Channel pulled the Dixie Chicks off of all their stations and organized CD demolitions where you could bring your CDs to have them destroyed- as if the Nazi parallels weren't scary enough...

Days after Howard started criticizing the president (after years of applauding him) his show was pulled from all Clear Channel stations. This is no coincidence. Talk show hosts on Clear Channel stations report having been instructed not to criticize the president or large corporations anymore or risk being fired. Some of those who have been fired are finally coming forward.

Howard said on his show yesterday that he's resisted concluding this is whole situation was caused by Bush's thugs because on it's face it sounds like wacked-out conspiracy theory. Stuff like this just doesn't happen in a free country. The truth is, we're no longer free. This administration has a strangle hold on the largest media companies- the moment someone steps out of line Colin Powell's son will slow any paperwork at the FCC related to the company that's acting up. This is how the game is played in 2004, government control over what we see and hear. The only way to be successful is bow to the president, cover him like he's a God among men and hope your broadcast license isn't suspended if you do a story on Halliburton.

Much like September 11th was used to justify invading Iraq, the Super Bowl half time show is being used to silence any opposition to the president. Just like 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Janet Jackson's boob has nothing to do with Howard Stern's suspension, it's just an excuse to kill free speech.

We all know Iraq was a mistake- it's outrageous that it took thousands upon thousands of corpses to prove that point. Now we're seeing the erosion of free speech in this country- if things continue the way they are we will have no way of knowing when we've started another unjust war. Call it paranoia if you will- Howard Stern used to think the same thing.

Money generally set aside when a new administration is voted in now is being requested by the Bush administration.

How fucking ridiculous.

The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the panel's chairman and vice chairman.

The members said the commission had also decided to continue to press the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to reconsider her refusal to testify at a public hearing. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are expected to be asked about how they had reacted to intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, suggesting that Al Qaeda might be planning a large attack. Panel members want to ask Ms. Rice the same questions in public.

"We have held firm in saying that the conditions set by the president and vice president and Dr. Rice are not good enough," said Timothy J. Roemer, a former Indiana congressman who is one of five Democrats on the 10-member commission.

Mr. Roemer said that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had agreed to meet privately with the full bipartisan commission, and that Samuel R. Berger, Ms. Rice's predecessor, would testify in public.

more...

How can they seriously say they want to cooperate while offering a sum total of one hour of cooperation? At least they're no longer getting away with shit like this...

The first episode of his show Dennis talked about the decision not to have an audience- something along the lines of not wanting a bunch of Leno audience rejects in his studio- now they're putting in an audience because the camera guys don't laugh loud enough.

A new witness has stepped forward saying that the documents stolen by a Republican operative from a Democratic server were swiped because of lax security.

That's like acquitting a car thief because the doors were unlocked. If only all the black-hat hackers and crackers who have been swept up by the FBI in the last thirty years had thought of that defense... Oh wait, they did. It didn't wash in those cases either.

Manuel Miranda, who stands accused of the crime, is getting other Republican staffers to argue that these documents were in plain sight, as if they were left face up on someone's desk- they weren't. You had to open that folder, and once you opened that folder you had to open that document. Assuming you're a Republican staffer in a Democratic shared drive either you knew you were not supposed to be there or you are a complete moron. Miranda is doing such a good job of incriminating himself, it's hard to make that call. What's clear is that stealing documents is wrong, he stole hundreds of documents, leaked information contained in the stolen documents to top Republicans (possibly the White House) and the press, and is not sorry for the crimes he's committed.

There's no room for mercy here- they should throw the book at him. He has lost his way and he clearly no longer understands the difference between right and wrong. Presenting a witness who agrees with you that accessing the documents illegally was easy- than sending out a press release saying how this new information embarrasses your accusers? That takes a special kind of stupidity.
Link

Bartcop has untreatable cancer, but expects to hang around a while.