Meanwhile, Have a Look at What Good Ol' Uncle Karl is Up To

We get distracted by tragic news of more natural disasters, but Uncle Karl is on point regarding Harriet Miers. Fear not, he's looking out for our best interests:

Q Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it's okay, she belongs to an ultra evangelical church?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're calling up a lot of people --

Q Why that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to reach out to them and talk to them about the President's selection of Harriet Miers. And what he is emphasizing in those conversations, Terry, is that she is someone who is strongly committed to a conservative judicial philosophy...

...Q I'll try to ask an earlier question a bit more directly. Did Rove talk to Dobson about Miers' religious beliefs to signal in any way how he thought she would vote on an issue before the Court?

MR. McCLELLAN: He talked to her about a lot of things. And he emphasized what her experience was and what her qualifications are. And he talked about her judicial philosophy, and I think that's what he was emphasizing. He also talked about who she is and what her background is.

Q Okay, but part of the discussion -- you talked earlier about it -- part of the discussions was about her religious beliefs.

MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question. Q Did he -- I haven't heard an answer. Did he bring that up to signal --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have an answer. It may not be one that you like, but you have an answer.

Q I don't feel I have an answer. Can you just say yes or no, did he try to signal -- was he trying to signal how she might vote on any particular --

MR. McCLELLAN: This should be based on someone's qualifications and record and judicial philosophy. That's what the President believes. And I'm not going to get into trying to go through every conversation that people have in our outreach efforts. We have a lot of conversations. We are reaching out to members of the Senate. Harriet Miers has met with a number of Senators already. And the decision that senators make we hope will be based on what the standard has always been, which is, is she qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. She is highly qualified to serve on our nation's highest court, and we encourage people to get to know her better and get to know her record and her qualifications.

There's No Policy Like No Policy.

Back to the fun of reading press briefings from the W, Rove and Co. Ringing through my ears was the tune, "there's no business like show business..." Again, one has to wonder how the W, Rove and set policy or if there is no policy at all. Today, Helen Thomas asked a good question about Syria and our stance toward them. She, of course, got the usual banal dismissal from Scotty McMessage McClellan:

Helen, go ahead.

Q I read that the President is seeking a regime change in Syria. Does he plan to widen the war in the Middle East? And just how does he -- what right would he have to unseat anybody in another country without provocation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know what you're reading, but it doesn't seem like it's an accurate reflection of our policy.

Q The Financial Times.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think it's an accurate reflection of our policy.

Q Are you denying --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about our concerns when it comes to Syria earlier today --

Q I know. I'm asking you specifically --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and he expressed what our view is.

Q -- is he seeking a regime change in Syria?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's no change in our policy toward Syria.

Q Whatever that is.

More on God or the Devil

This is a more entertaining piece on the subject I raised a day or so ago. The bigger question being how the hell would W know if he was speaking to God or the Devil?

Scene: White House, night, not long ago. President Bush present in his most favoritest guns 'n' bunnies pj's. Laura asleep, knocked out by a combination of too much Good Housekeeping and excessive hairspray fumes. Suddenly, a burst of black smoke. A deep, resonant voice speaks:

"Psst! George! God here, taking a break from supervising the well-being of 8 billion troubled souls along with infinite galaxies of unimaginable vastness to speak with you directly one more time because, well, you're special, aren't you, George? Yes, you are! Yes, you are! OK, stop giggling. I have more commands. Get off the damn hobbyhorse, George, and get a pen and a notepad. No, not a crayon. I don't care if blue is your favori -- George! Get a pen! OK? Good. Here we go: "

As you know, I'm not quite what everyone thinks. I am not all benevolence and love and light. In fact, I have a downright dark side, mean and nasty and cunning, and I want you, George, to continue to be my special right-hand man. My special little guy. In fact, you shall help enact my wrath, Dubya. Doesn't that sound fun? "There are three things I love, George: war, revenge and suffering. Oh, and smiting the heathens. OK, four things. And kickboxing. Five things.

There are five things I love, Dubya. You with me? And you and your demon monkeys are enacting the first four admirably, George. Don't be shy, go ahead and tell those Palestinian officials you were commanded by God to "restore peace" in the Middle East by bombing nearly defenseless, pip-squeak Iraq and Afghanistan to smithereens. They love that stuff...

Click the link for the full read - enjoy if you don't piss your pants with anger first.

Would Alexander Hamilton Have Supported George?

Doubt it. Too bad W, doesn't read:

However the Miers nomination turns out, the fact that Bush submitted it is an unflattering reflection on his character. In the Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton writes that the Senate’s role in confirming appointments is designed to make the President

"both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

The Greatest Strategic Disaster In U.S. History

A friend pointed me to an interview of Ret. Army General William Odom (ran NSA in Vietnam, so he knows a thing or two about war). Here's some tidbits to keep the discourse going:

“The invasion of Iraq will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.” In his article, Odom says, “The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the U.S. occupation of Iraq...

...Well, I'm trying to think like a strategist. And in war, as well as in politics and diplomacy, one has to know when to withdraw and when to attack. And this was a misguided attack, and it requires a strategic vision and moral confidence to turn it around, the earlier the better. But as the evidence piles up, I think my judgment is being borne out.

I said before the war in February that if we invade Iraq, this will serve primarily the interests of two people: Osama bin Laden, because it will make Iraq safe for al Qaeda, and it will allow him to have access to kill Americans, which he cannot do in the U.S. very effectively; the second party that would benefit greatly would be the Iranians. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, and they fought for eight years, and Iranians hated that regime as much more than we did. Therefore it was very much in their interest, and it is clearer now that a Shiite majority will probably end up in control in Iraq, and it will not be pro-American, and it probably will be an Islamic religious republic.

God or The Devil

This is very scary. How does W know he is communicating with God and not the Devil?

Shaath, now the Palestinian information minister, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God.

'God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'.'

"And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq...' And I did.

"'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it'," said Shaath.

Abbas, who was also at the meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, recalled how the president told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation.

"So I will get you a Palestinian state."

A BBC spokesman said the content of the programme had been put to the White House but it had refused to comment on a private conversation.

Onomatopoeia

Three year olds say the darndest things. Our eldest son came up with a fantastic word a while back that simply rolls off the tongue. The trouble is, we sure can't come up with and equally riveting meaning. The word - spelled in an onomatopoeia format - sounds exactly like it reads: Chublioop. The closest thing I can come up with as a worthy meaning is as follows:

Chublioop: (n) Word originating from the mouths of toddlers. Pronounced exactly like it's spelled.

1- A boy or girl of toddler age, well behaved, laughing uncontrollibly while having serious fun (involving toys or not, but most certainly not doing something devilish like drawing on the wall with crayons).

Does anyone else have another definition for this new word we shall introduce to the common vernacular? Please post below in the comments.

Is This the Begining of the Crash?

I was sitting next to a fairly fine guitar player at an Irish Session last night. He was an employee of Delphi. 29 years in as an electritian. He said, "Well, I'll be seing you, but then again maybe not. My company's going under and so are our jobs. My pension is going away, too. Nothing I can do about it."

I said, that whole situation sucks. And the management is getting away with highway robbery with their giant severance packages and settlements. He replied. "Well, don't worry about me. I am going to move to Ireland. They need electricians there." With that, he belted out a very nice traditional tune (I can't remember the name). He had a sweet voice and a fine flare with the guitar. No doubt, we will miss him here. But, Ireland gains.

General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - news) shares fell sharply early on Monday on
worries about heightened risks for the world's largest automaker after auto
parts maker Delphi Corp. (NYSE:DPH - news) filed for bankruptcy over the weekend

Spurious Mr. Bush

NYTimes points out another spurious component of the W, Rove and Co's arsenal. Unfortunately, this is not the groundwork for trusting this and any future president. Voila - Executive Order 13233:

SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives
who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs
of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files
pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department,
President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know.
And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost
transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which stipulated that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office.

Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12 years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed paperwork in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.)

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

Ethics are Fine for the Other Guys

Shaking our heads here at this house in disgust over another typical (and sad to say, S.O.P.) W, Rove and Co. machination:

When the Senate voted this week to bring America's chain of military prison camps under the rule of law, President Bush threatened a veto. The White House explained his objections by saying the measure would bind the government's hands. Yes, exactly. The rules would finally bind military prisons to democratic values and the standards of behavior recognized by every other civilized nation. They would bind the government to a code of conduct that will help protect those in the nation's uniform.

The measure would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners held by the military - which, by the way, is already against American law and a longstanding treaty. Mr. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are about the only ones left who want to defend the justness and practical value of the abhorrent practices introduced at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and then exported to Abu Ghraib. Ninety senators voted for the new law, including 46 Republicans - even Bill Frist, the majority leader,
who yanked the measure from the floor last summer.

All is Well, Remain Calm...But Now Fear This

The fear mongers of the W, Rove and Co. are getting stale. While some folks may still be buying the connection between 11 Sept. and Iraq, I don't think the charade is working well any more. Remember the closing scenes of Animal House where the ROTC dude is shouting at the on-rushing crowd, "all is well, remain calm?" Much like this stooge, the W periodically trumpets that all in Iraq is well against the backdrop of an ever improving and gaining more practice fringe group of radical bomber types that use GIs and civilians for target practice.

To complete the whole loony cycle, W then shoots himself in the foot dredging up the tired old saga of 9/11. This is when and why such folks as Cindy Sheehan gain credance with her/their simple redquest to stop using dead soldiers as a lever for advocating more (or continued) violence. Simply put, the W, Rove and Co must stop using 9/11 as their cause celebre to push their illigetimate agenda. Frankly, I for one, among many, am not buying it anymore.

Slice 1

We've lost track of the number of times President Bush has told Americans to ignore their own eyes and ears and pretend everything is going just fine in Iraq. Yesterday, when Mr. Bush added a ringing endorsement of his own policy to his speech on terrorism, it was that same old formula: the wrong questions, the wrong answers and no new direction.

Slice 2

Yesterday, the same day New Yorkers were warned there was a "specific threat" of a bombing on their subways, President Bush delivered what the White House promoted as a major address on terrorism. It seemed, on the surface, like a perfect topic for the moment. But his talk was not about the nation's current challenges. He delivered a reprise of his Sept. 11 rhetoric that suggested an avoidance of today's reality that seemed downright frightening.

More Bumper Sticker Wisdom

Out and about, I spied yet another pithy bumper sticker:

We need a better President
(blue with white lettering)

What is your favorite as of late? Post in comment below.

Trusting the President

When W says that he never talked with Harriet Miers about her views on abortion, do you believe him? I do. Why he doesn't need to is a better question: Becuase he "knows her heart." We can thus assume that she is of the same mind, no?

In the few clips I have been able to listen to during the W's press briefing (not yet on line with the text last I checked), I have one question: How is it that a person can expect another to not change over the course of twenty years? W expects that here Miers' judicial philosophy won't change, but like the W, Rove and Co. are unable and unwilling to discuss possible cases that the court may hear, how could the W know what Ms. Miers will be like in 20 years?

Certainly, her experience, if appointed will change her. Moreover, we should all ask ourselves. Are we the same people we were twenty years ago? Nope. Is it time to start trusting this president? I don't think so. The reasons not to are many.

Almost Three Strikes for DeLay

Just wondering, if found guilty of not one, but two, or even three charges, is that enough to put DeLay behind bars permanently? Certainly, if he was a poor person living by the seat of his pants, three convictions would do it for him. But, no doubt, the man with no shortage of PAC assistance, will be hiring the best, well healed lawyers to wiggle out of these charges.

A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on two new felony charges including money laundering, following a conspiracy indictment last week which forced him to step aside as the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The new indictment accuses DeLay of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering in a campaign finance scheme and greatly raises the legal stakes for the once-powerful Texan because it includes a potential punishment of life in prison if convicted.

Affirmative Action for Judicial Appointments

It is astounding that the W, Rove and Co. couldn't find someone to serve on the SCOTUS with at least a smattering of bench experience. I don't know how many gigs, besides working at entry level jobs, where a person with no experience can get hired. Do you? Excuse me, but isn't the title of Supreme Court Justice one that should be earned, not handed out like affirmative action for friends of the W?

WASHINGTON - President Bush named White House counsel Harriet Miers to a Supreme Court in transition Monday, turning to a longtime loyalist without experience as a judge or publicly known views on abortion to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Let's take a quick tour of today's press briefing by the presidential spokesmodel, Scotty McMessage McClellan:

Ms. Miers, the skeleton:

Q Scott, she's a total skeleton candidate with no paper trail. Do you think the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with your characterization, because she is someone who has a very distinguished career and a long record of accomplishment.

Ms. Miers, the Friend:

Q Was he rewarding a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said he was appointing someone who will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And all you have to do is go and look at her record and what she brings to the Court. She brings very diverse and broad experience that will be very helpful to the Court. Go ahead, Terry.

Q: Scott, you mentioned her legal experience. Part of that experience is that she was the President's personal lawyer. Can you tell us some of the matters that she would have represented the President in? I understand there was a real estate matter. Did she get involved in the National Guard stuff, the jury duty -- can you tell us --

Ms. Miers, the Crony:

Q And something else will come up, and I just want to let you have the opportunity to answer directly, and Kelly was getting at. What do you say when people will say he put his own lawyer on the Supreme Court? That's definitional cronyism.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd say look at her record. As I said, she is someone that he knows well. But look at her record. Her record is one of being a trailblazer for women in the legal profession and a record of being a tough and strong litigator who has represented clients before state and federal courts on a broad range of issues. She is someone who brings the exact kind of experience and qualifications needed on our nation's highest court, and that's why the President selected her.

Ms. Miers, the Policy Wonk and "Senior Member of the Whitehouse Staff:"

Q She's going to pay strong attention to the law of the land, which means she should support Roe versus Wade. And, also, what policies has she participated in, in the White House, that are already on the record? Can you say what her participation was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here at he White House. She started as the Staff Secretary for the President when he first came into office. Then she became the Deputy Chief of Staff. And then, just about six/seven months ago, the President named her his White House Counsel. So she's been very involved in policy matters here at the White House. That was part of her role, and that's one of her strengths, is that she has served within the administration at some of the highest levels of government. The two justices I mentioned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White, were --

Q No, I'm asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but I'm pointing out, they were members of the administration prior to being nominated to the bench.

Q Well, what policies --

MR. McCLELLAN: So it's helpful that she has that kind of broad experience. She has served as a city councilwoman in Dallas. She has served as a state official on the Texas Lottery Commission -- she helped clean it up when it needed cleaning up. And she is someone who has produced positive results.

Q Can we assume that his policies -- that she had a big, strong hand in the policies that we've watched over the -- since 2001?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here. She's been a senior member of the President's White House staff.

Ms. Miers as the object of spin:

Q Well, people like Howard Dean, are asking -- they're, like, the jury is still out because they want to know what her opinions are. What would you say to Howard Dean, beyond the spinnage [sic] you're giving now, to give something specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, beyond what?

Q The spin --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm giving the facts.

Q No, you're not answering directly, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts, April.

Q No, you're not answering directly, Scott, about her opinion.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts. There's some spin going on from you. (Laughter.)

Ms. Miers as Personal Legal Guardian of W:

Q Along the lines of what Terry was asking. There's a report that the President hired Harriet Miers to look through his background for anything that could be derogatory when he first started thinking about running for office, back when he was in Texas, back in --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me double-check. I wasn't working for him at that point. Go ahead.

Ms. Miers - because there was no other qualified candidate?:

Q There must be many other female corporate lawyers around the country who are also extremely well-qualified in the way that she is. Is there anything particular in her background with regard to her knowledge of constitutional law that makes her particularly well-qualified for this nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's everything the President mentioned earlier today, as well as everything we've put out on her and her long distinguished career. I mean, if you go and look at -- I mean, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White, they were nominated at a much younger age than Harriet Miers, and had not had as much legal experience as someone like she has had. She is very uniquely qualified to sit on our nation's highest court. She is someone who was selected by her colleagues, who know her best, in Texas, to serve as the first president of the Texas Bar Association. She was a candidate for the second-highest position at the American Bar Association before withdrawing her name so she could come to Washington and serve in the administration of the President, back in 2001.

Well, from the sound of it, this looks to be a wild ride that may not beget confirmation.

Hinting At Victory

Is it me, or is anyone else getting very tired of W hinting that we are close to victory in the "war on terror?"

As Iraqis take these next steps on the path to freedom and democracy, the terrorists will do everything they can to stop this progress and try to break our will. They will fail. Defeating the terrorists in Iraq will require more time and more sacrifice. Yet all Americans can have confidence in the military commanders who are leading the effort in Iraq, and in the troops under their command. They have made important gains in recent weeks and months; they are adapting our strategy to meet the needs on the ground; and they're helping us to bring victory in the war on terror.

Two good questions for the W, Rove and Co 1) What exactly would victory in the "war on terror" look like? And 2) Can you finish the job before your entire party is voted out of office (or at least by 2008)?

Of Presidents and Perp Walks

Just wondering if folks like "Turd Blossom" and "Scooter" will be showered in a hail of paparazzi flash bulbs as they are trotted out of the whitehouse in cuffs, or will they be sheltered by W? Either way, it will be interesting to see how the W, Rove and Co work to wiggle their way out of the Plame Affair.

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated...

...By July 12, however, both Rove and Libby and perhaps other senior White House officials knew about Wilson's wife's position at the CIA and, according to lawyers familiar with testimony in the probe, used that information with reporters to undermine the significance of Wilson's trip.

Quick question for folks in the blogisphere: Do the behaviors of the W, Rove and Co tarnish the whitehouse or simply the men and women inhabiting the whitehouse?

In Hock Up To Our Stars And Stripes

Is it me, or has the W, Rove and Co. fallen down on just about every tenet of conservatism except those tenets sponsored by religious zealots' that foster institutonalized bigotry?

Why, 2K

Found this video on a tip from Moxie Grrrl. It's orignal maker posted it on Bring It On. Ironically, as we gradually surpass 2000 troops KIA, and god knows how many others wounded in Iraq, we must face the music and admit that it was the year 2000 that this madness all started with a stolen election. Accountablity must be demanded, and persons responsible brought to justice.

Are You Pissed Yet?

If there hasn't been enough reason to be extremely pissed at this W, Rove and Co, how about this latest?

Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

Of course, the reichwing will be bandying the "activist" judge lable about, but really, the house of cards is on the verge of tumbling.

Scooter's Been A Bad Boy

Of Course, the W is going stand by his pals, no matter what.

Ending her standoff with federal prosecutors after nearly three months in jail, New York Times reporter Judith Miller appeared before a federal grand jury on Friday investigating who in the Bush administration leaked a covert CIA operative's identity.

Miller agreed to break her silence and testify after receiving what she described as a voluntary and personal waiver of confidentiality from her source, identified as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

Excuse Me?

Now, Scotty is ceasing to be entertaining and starting to piss me off. How arrogant. I am certain bloggers out there will be equally pissed at this statement:

Q The American people want answers to what happened and what went wrong --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're absolutely wrong. The American people recognize that sometimes here in Washington, people get all focused on the bickering and the finger-pointing, they get into this charged atmosphere. The President is --

Q Maybe they could be focused on more than one thing at the same time.

Excuse me Mr. McClellan - You, sir, are wrong! In fact, the American people demand and deserve answers, accountability, and to be assured that heads, will indeed, roll.

But DeLay is Still Great in the Eyes of the President

Does anyone else get the same flavor of the W, Rove and Co. hypocrisy dished in this latest press briefing exchange with Scotty McMessage McClellan? You will want to pay attention to Scotty's response to Hellen, in particular.

Q Scott, the President earlier this year, in April, called Tom DeLay a very effective leader. In May he called him a fine Majority Leader. Does he still hold those opinions --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q -- even though he's been indicted?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people.

Q Has the President spoken with Speaker Hastert or other Republican leaders on the Hill today to talk about this interim time with DeLay stepping aside?

MR. McCLELLAN: When I left him just a short time ago, he was having lunch with his National Security Advisor and Secretary of State and the Vice President and Chief of Staff Andy Card. I don't believe he's had any conversations with those individuals. I think White House staff certainly has been in contact with members of Congress, as we are on a regular basis.

Q What's the President's reaction? You said you were with him --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me keep -- I'll come to you, Dana. Go ahead. Jennifer.

Q No, we'll share.

MR. McCLELLAN: Anybody else on the front row? Okay, go ahead.

Q Can you give us -- can you characterize the President's reaction, and especially with -- when you have so many legislative things you want to move forward?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. I think that the President's view is that we need to let the legal process work. There is a process in place, and we'll let that work. Go ahead, Helen.

Q The papers have been satiated in the last few days, again with another round of our abuse of prisoners and detainees and torture. Has the President ever issued a directive to all military prisons under our control that they should not torture and they should abide by the Geneva Accord?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Yes. In fact, we did that quite some time ago.

Q There is an actual directive?

MR. McCLELLAN: If people are involved in wrongdoing, they're going to be held to account. And that's exactly what -- that's exactly what this administration has done.

Q I asked you if the President has issued any executive order against torture. MR.

McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we do not torture and we do not condone torture. And if people --

Q But we do.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if people break the law, they are brought to account. And that's exactly what we've done in the instances that you're referring to.

It's a bitter taste, isn't it?

Here's some more from the same briefing. A good question followed by yet another distrubing answer:

Q Is the President concerned that there's a stench of corruption around the Republican establishment in Washington?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I don't think you can make such a broad characterization. There are some instances of individual situations, and we'll let those -- the legal process proceed in those instances.

Q But he's not -- he doesn't take it as seriously as he takes other allegations of wrongdoing?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say that; you said that.

Q He did take it seriously?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a legal process in place to address these matters.

Q Does he still have confidence in Leader DeLay? And what does he think the impact of this will be on his agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just expressed his views. Again, the President considers him a good ally and a friend who we have worked with very closely to get things done for the American people.

No doubt, these folks are hoping some activist judge will rule in favor of DeLay.

Internet Fun

Got this from a friend via Email:

Breaking News

BUSH PRAISES SWIFTNESS OF HURRICANE RITA PHOTO-OPS

But Says Government Must Create Impression of Concern Even Faster in Future

In a televised speech to the nation last night, President George W. Bush praised the Federal government for responding swiftly to Hurricane Rita with well-crafted, high-quality photo opportunities showing him looking concerned, but said that the government needs to create the impression of concern even faster in the future.

Mr. Bush said the fact that the government provided the first images of him looking grave and engaged in the crisis even before Hurricane Rita slammed into the Texas and Louisiana coastline showed that it had learned the lessons of Hurricane Katrina.

"After Hurricane Katrina, it was hours before the American people saw the first photos of me furrowing my brow and looking serious," Mr. Bush said. "But with Rita, we had high-quality images of me looking worried right from the get-go."

While praising the swiftness of the government's photo-op response to Rita, the president said that "much work still needs to be done" to ensure that the government will produce high-quality post-disaster photo-ops even faster in the future.

To that end, he said he was creating a new government bureaucracy, the Federal Emergency Image Management Agency, which would provide the president with lighting, cameras, and dramatic backdrops within minutes of any national emergency.

"In times of crisis, the president needs to send the American people the following message," the president concluded. "Message: I look like I care."

Elsewhere, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher wed in a private ceremony over the weekend, vowing to love, honor and obey each other longer than Renee Zellweger and Kenny Chesney.

Time of Death

Listening to NPR's Morning Edition today, I heard a report from the NOLA coroner's office proclaiming that no matter the cuase or actual time of death, all bodies recovered will be given an official time of death that corresponds with the landing of Katrina.

This is a mistake. There will be, no doubt, many people who have legitimate claims of wrongful death. These cases will be complicated by death certificates stamped with an official ceremonial date rather than the actual time and date of death. Post Katrina dates of death may arguably be due to the negligence of the governmental response, or like the cases with the nursing homes, negligence of the hospital staffs.

It's a technicality. But in the legal world, technicalities end up getting criminals off the hook.

What's Good for Martha

While Martha got locked up for something else, serving time hasn't really damaged her standing. It could be good for DeLay, as well. Of course, he claims innocence. Most folks behind bars insist he/she didn't do it. What's interesting is that he has stepped down from a Congressional leadership role, but hasn't resigned his seat. His constituents should demand nothing less.

The powerful Republican, nicknamed "The Hammer" for his reputation as a tough party enforcer, could face up to two years in prison if convicted on the charge handed up by the Travis County grand jury in the Texas state capital, Austin.

DeLay was indicted on a single conspiracy charge tied to illegal fund-raising activities by Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC, a political action committee he created, the Travis County District Attorney's office said.

Investigating Oneself

Is it me, or does it seem like Brownie consulting with FEMA on investigations and extracting lessons learned would be like a person caught for cheeting or insider trading conducting their own hearing or grand jury inquery? Truly, the taxpayers are getting screwed by Mr. Brown for the remainder of the thirty days he will be billing us for services rendered:

Q Does the President think it's appropriate that Michael Brown is doing consulting work for FEMA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that's a question probably to ask to the Department of Homeland Security; I think that they've responded to it. I think he's only on that for about a 30-day period from the time that he announced his resignation.

Q Does the President think that's okay, that 30 --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President supports Secretary Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security, and I think they're probably in the best position to answer any questions about it. I'm not sure that you can just simplify it into just a broad statement.

Q Any specific reaction --

MR. McCLELLAN: One of the things that they said that he's focused on is helping them with lessons learned.

This Quote Aught To Blow Your Mind

Rock City nails it. By the way, here's a taste of the deeply philosophical waxing toward genius:

I myself accept that maybe intelligent design may be behind the existence of existence, but I also accept that beyond that I cannot know anything else.

Interesting Equation

There's an interesting equation posted over at Bring It On that I thought would make for an interesting query in Scotty's next press bewildering (oop, I mean breifing).

Katrina + Rita + Iraq – Taxes = How Much?.

They also quote Barack Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said September 18, 2005 on Face the Nation

"This I think is where the problem comes in. You can't fight a war in Iraq that's costing upwards of 200 billion dollars and rebuild Katrina-rebuild N.O. and respond to the aftermath of Katrina-and try to deal with all the other domestic needs that we have, and- then cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% of Americana. I mean there was talk right-immediately after the hurricane that the republicans in the senate were still going to push forward with the repeal the estate tax which is mind boggling I think. We need some adult supervision of the budget process...”

They also post a few solution suggestions lest you think all such bloggers do is lament:

1. At the very least, allow the tax cuts to sunset...
2. Cut the pork from the budget...
3. Re-address transportation bill...
4. Re-address the equally bad energy bill...

Any further suggestions can be posted in the comment section bellow this post. Thank you.

More on the Brownie Folly - Subtitle: Brownie's the Perfect Scapegoat

It seems as though there is a large amount of sychronicity and serendipity involved in the posting regarding the Failures of Mr. Brown (sounds like an appropriate movie title, no?). Found that QT posted about this and I replied over at that location as follows:

Independently, many folks have come to the same conclusions about the utter incompetence of this man. Then, I got to thinking. What if Rove et al. had ultimately made it difficult for Brownie to do "a heckuva job," drumming up the list of failures for which they could fire this man, thereby making him the perfect scapegoat for the reprehensible governmental response on all levels - thus, turning the fingers away from vacationaing presidents toward local officials. Ah, but that would have taken o - three to five days to dream up...which by the way, was about how long it took W to get off his vacation and back on the job.

File this under things that make you go hummm....

Typical

Brown is posturing to parry with the best of the responsibility deflectors stealing a page out of the W, Rove and Co play book: Part of the game behind the blame. When all fingers point toward you, start pointing your finger at others.

Slice:

WASHINGTON - Former FEMA director Michael Brown aggressively defended his role in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday and blamed most coordination failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

Hey, Brownie...what are you thinking?

How I Wish You Were Here

The Folks at Bring It On are getting creative with their blog posting video clips to distribute the message.

Video Clip 1: How I Wish You Were Here
Video Clip 2: My Home Town

Wish Yo' Daddy Had

I always enjoy a good protest banner. You have to love the green hair, and the message is funny. Found this via BigBrass Blog on Days. Any captions?

There are Expenses, and Then There's Debt

Which would you rather have: A) those alive today, pithcing in and help pay clean up the Katrina and Rita aftermath, or perhaps b) borrowing on those yet unborn Americans that will be saddled with an ever increasing debt caused by the actions of the W, Rove and Co?

There is a C) killing numerous social and government programs in order to make up the difference between what we have and what we don't to cover the cost - but we see how the levees in New Orleans were done a disservice by such manuvers. I don't think option C is a viable one.

Slice from a Move On email:

The cost of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, while huge, is far less than what President Bush has given away in tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent.2 National crises like Hurricanes Rita and Katrina are times for all Americans to stick together and put in our fair share.

Breaking All The Records for Dishonesty

Moxie Grrrl had a link to truth and liars post of Viggo Mortenson speaking about the W, Rove and Co. Given that I wen to see "A History of Violence" last night, I thought I would link up here. It does make me feel better about spending my discretionary dollars supporting Viggo's work.

Bursting Buttons on My Vest

Big Brother, yes my Big Brother - one of the persons that inspired my starting this blog, is receiving a Bronze Star for some of his work in Iraq. No matter what you think of the Iraq war, the mission is still producing heroes and providing, unfortunately, copious opportunities for heroic action.

My brother is modest and wasn't going to tell anyone, but his spouse called us up to fill in the details. That said, we didn't get any details on the actual rationale for the award. I asked my brother why he was getting it and he said, at first, it was for putting up with me all these years. I said, well, shoot, then I should be getting one for putting up with him. Joking aside, he did say that he would have to wait and see what the citation says, but they don't just hand these things out like candy at a birthday party for five year olds. He said, really, he did some things that were pretty dangerous and where he was getting shot at directly, but he didn't say more. When my brother declines to comment about things he has seen in Iraq and other parts (for we never really know where he goes when he goes away), I've learned its because he is shielding us from horrors we really don't want to know (e.g. when he did his tour in the First Bush War, he actually saw the killing fields on the road from Kuwait to Iraq). So, I don't ask - this is a bit more honorable don't ask, don't tell policy, I think.

Anyway, I am still a bit flabbergasted that my brother will be getting the Bronze Star. The buttons are bursting off my vest. And, I remain humbled by the work of our troops here, there, and everywhere. Glad they're on our side.

NYTimes Supporting Homophobia

Found this Op-Ed piece (in the free on-line section) of the NYTimes. Of course, the opinions on the op-ed pages are those of the author, but really, they didn't have to print this article. It's bad enough the Church is working to purge otherwise upstanding and honorable priests simply because they are homosexual. In fact, an argument could be made that homosexuals make better priests than heterosexuals. That may indeed make another fine blog post at a later point. The thrust of my argument and qualms for this particular author is that she has couched her homophobia in a rhetorical argument for seminary reform.

Sure, her points are well taken, but the subtext and subliminally laced homophobia should be identified and make us angry. And frankly, I am getting very tired of folks who think they are better than others simply becuase they like to have heterosexual sex (or practice - although not altogether successfully - celebacy or abstinance, if you will).

Slice:

THIS week, teams of examiners, led by Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military, are beginning a visitation of all 229 Catholic seminaries in the United States. Judging by press accounts, the effort is all about uncovering and expelling homosexuals - a purge, simply put.

In truth, it's about far more than homosexuality. And it's badly needed...

...The same goes for the presence in seminaries of gay subcultures that draw their identity from secular values rather than the Catholic moral vision. Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising.

A seminary has a dual responsibility. It owes the future priest preparation for a life of sacrifice, unique witness and engagement with other human beings at moments of joy and pain in a society that has no respect for his vocation.

But a seminary also owes us, the people in the pews, psychologically mature priests who aren't engaged in an eternal and ego-driven struggle with their own problems, who are prepared to serve, to teach and preach - with integrity and honesty.

Massive Protests Voicing Dissent with W's Illegitimate War In Iraq

Today's flood of protests, no doubt, well be pooh poohed by the W, Rove and Co as just people exercising their first amendment rights. Brad Blog has many video clips, including Cindy Sheehan's message.

Largely, the mainstream media is ignoring the marches across the country. Still it's up to us to hold this administrations' feet to the fire and vote them out post haste.

I don't think Ms. Sheehan's speech was altogether inspiring, but the message is pretty clear: Not one more should die.

Is This an Effective Use of Taxpayer Bux?

Just wondering, since W, and his crew are not first-responders, is this an effective use of taxpayer dollars?

The Truth Is, It's Hard to Lie

Crooks and Liars has a nice capture of the Daily Show's rant on Press Secretaries and the ritual dance of the press briefing. Enjoy.

What about OBL and Other Known Terrorists? P.S. Who the Hell is Bianca?

Just like Scotty, W does a fine job of avoiding answers to good questions. From today's briefing:

Q Why has it been so difficult to catch bin Laden and Zarqawi? And can you really say that you are making progress in the war on terrorism when these people have been, you know, able to stay free for so long?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I can say we're making progress in the war on terror. If you look at the organizational structure of al Qaeda right after September the 11th and look at it today, you'll see a lot of people have been brought to justice -- Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, al Libbi. I mean, there's a series of these folks that had been plotting and planning and ordering attacks. And we have found them -- we being a coalition. So step one is there is a coalition. A lot of people around the world understand the stakes, that this is global war against people who've got a dark vision and a strategy to achieve that vision. Look, let me take a step back. People have got to understand that there is a global network of terrorists who desire to dominate a part of the world. They would like to see a Taliban-type relationships in countries around the world. They want to be in a position to impose their philosophy. The best way for me to describe what life would be like is to remind people what life was like for those poor Afghan citizens under the Taliban. That's what -- in other words, they have a strategy. We understand that. And we have a strategy. And part of the strategy is to call free nations together to form a coalition, to share information and to find people before they hurt. Now, look, they've been successful on attacks. They were successful here. They've been successful in London and Madrid. In other words, they have had attacks. On the other hand, we've been successful at bringing them to justice and finding some of the killers before they were able to strike again. And so there has been success at bringing awareness to the international community about what we need to do. There's been success about bringing people to justice. No question that some of their leaders are still at large, isolated, however, kind of in remote parts the world. But make no mistake about it, we're doing everything we can to find them. And when we do, we'll bring them to justice. We're now -- a part of that global war on terror is in Iraq. And the reason why is because these killers and these terrorists understand that the spread of democracy is their worst nightmare. See, democracy trumps their view of the world. Democracy trumps Taliban-type regimes, because it's free. Because when you live in a free world, you have hope. And so that's why you're seeing him -- a guy like Zarqawi, who has become a top al Qaeda fighter -- using every tool at his disposal, primarily the ability to get on TV screens with a massive suicide bombing, the killing of innocent people. And he does so because they want us to retreat. I mean, the strategy is clear. And we're not going to let him get away with it. We will work for democracy in Iraq, we'll hunt them down, we will train Iraqi forces so they can deal with those who are disgruntled with the march to democracy. But the war is beyond Iraq, that's what I'm trying to say to you. This is a global war. Afghanistan is a good example of progress being made. You might remember Afghanistan was the home base for the Taliban, as well as al Qaeda. And now we've got a democracy in Afghanistan and the world is better for it and safer for it. You bet we're making progress. We've got a lot of work. And this is a long struggle. To defeat this enemy, the United States of America must understand that it's going to take -- it's going to take time, just like it took time to defeat other struggles we had, other -- to succeed in other struggles we've had, like communism, and it's going to take a while. But what will accelerate the ability for the enemy to succeed is for the United States to lose its nerve, that's what I'm telling you. You got a question, sir?

Q Yes, sir, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: What might it be?

Q There is concern about the country's ability to pay for these hurricanes in the time ahead. Have you prioritized what may need to be cut?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to work with Congress to prioritize what may need to be cut. The other day I said that we're open-minded about offsets. What's a priority for me is to win this war on terror and secure the country, and to help the people down there to the extent that the law allows.

By the way, who the hell is Bianca? Must be some kind of press pool insiders joke? I don't know, but W sure does give a fair amount of attention to Bianca at the expense of tax payer dollars:

Q Mr. President, could we talk more about --

THE PRESIDENT: Are you Bianca?

Q No, I'm not. Anita -- Fox News.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Q Just a quick question --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I was looking for Bianca. I'm sorry.

Incidentially, Scotty seems pre-occupied with Bianca as well:

Q The observation is I've heard you say several times that the Judiciary Committee has acted in a civil and dignified way. Did you expect otherwise? Isn't that pretty condescending? And also, who makes up the list of reporters that the President can call on, or is allowed to? MR.

McCLELLAN: I think it's what the American people expect. I mean, we have seen at times where --

Q Why do you keep saying it?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- where things -- well, because, I think we all recognize here in Washington sometimes things tend to get down into the bitter, partisan debates. And the Supreme Court is our highest court in the land. The President has an obligation to nominate someone for the bench when a vacancy occurs, and it's the role of the Senate to move forward on confirming that nomination.

Q It's a free country where people can express themselves.

MR. McCLELLAN: And the American people -- and there -- that's absolutely right. But there's no reason why we cannot move forward in a civil and dignified way as we conduct the confirmation hearings. And the Senate, I think, has largely done that --

Q What hasn't moved forward in --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- they have largely done that on Judge Roberts, and we hope they will do that going forward. There are a lot of media reports talking about how there's going to be a very contentious hearing for the next nominee. We haven't even -- the President hasn't even made a decision on who will be his nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. And so that's why. I think I'm speaking for a lot of Americans who want to see a civil and dignified process going forward.

Q -- be contentious and civil and dignified in a democracy --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I can also express my -- I can also express the President's appreciation to the Senate for moving forward in a timely manner and moving forward in a civil and dignified way. We commend this --

Q It's condescending.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. It's complimenting them on the process.

Q Who makes up the list of reporters that he is allowed to call on?

Q Yes, where's Bianca? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Who makes up the list? It depends on the reporters that show up. I don't think she had a question. But the President --

Q Who is Bianca, anyway?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President had his most recent press conference this afternoon just a short time before I was out here, took questions from I think everyone who was there. Q -- you count that as a press conference?

Launching Pad to Greatness

Jimmy Carter is still the only president to use the position as a launching pad to bigger and better things. Let's hope his orchestrated bi-partisan election reform measures recieves more traction.

With 87 recomendations, at least a handful should be initiated, no?
WE agreed to lead the Commission on Federal Election Reform because of our shared concern that too many Americans lack confidence in the electoral process, and because members of Congress are divided on the issue and busy with other matters.

This week, we issued a report that bridges the gap between the two parties' perspectives and offers a comprehensive approach that can help end the sterile debate between ballot access and ballot integrity. Unfortunately, some have misrepresented one of our 87 recommendations. As a result, they have deflected attention from the need for comprehensive reform.

If you are curious as to what those recomendations are, and wish to view the whole report, here's the link.

1900

GIs who can't vote in '06. Remember the Nobel Cause? (Hat tip to Bring it On for the ensuing video clip.)

Still waiting for the Rove Outcome

Video via michael moore's web location. Hypocrites? You be the judge.

A Couple of Nice Video Clips

Via Moxie Grrrl. Enjoy:

Donahue rakes O'Riely over his own coals: Just becuase you are loud doesn't mean your right.

Second one is self explanitory. The first classic version is also located here:

Scotty Must be Befuddled

As the Prez does another jaunt to Texas (will he be stopping by Crawford to relax this time around, I doubt it), Scotty McMessage McClellan must be getting befuddled by all the questions. He is - intentional or not - starting to mix up his Rovian message and indicating that they want to find out what went wrong first rather than what went right.

If you didn't have the chance to tune into the whitehouse press conference live today, there is a text version with all the fun and gory details:

Q Right, but the President has the ability to -- under the Insurrection Act, to --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q -- to make the military a part of the law enforcement operation. He can do that --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a host of legal issues involved.

Q There are, indeed. But are you suggesting that he would like to find some other way to get them actively involved in law enforcement under special circumstances?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that these are issues that need to be looked at as we look at the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. We need to look back, and we have been, at what went wrong and what went right,(italics and bold added) and then do a lessons learned review.

Q That's what he's looking at, then, some way to give them the authority to conduct the security operations.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's one of the issues that we need to look at, is the role of the military, because there is a -- there are responsibilities at all levels of government when it comes to responding to hurricanes. Typically, the first responders are the state and local first responders, and the federal government's role is to assist those first responders. But there are some unique challenges that Katrina exposed that we need to look at and we need to do a better job of in the future in terms of responding to.

Q So you're saying that he'd like to look at the question of whether the military should be involved in law enforcement?

MR. McCLELLAN: He indicated that last week. Q How is it going to help the people of Texas practically prepare for this storm that the President is going to fly in to take a firsthand look at preparations and show support for first responders? How is that going to practically help them do what they have to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we're going to have as minimal a footprint as possible. We're not going to get in the way of the ongoing preparations that are going on. We go out of our way when we travel to make sure that that doesn't happen. The President wants to go in there and be able to thank all those first responders as they are gearing up for the challenges that will be coming shortly thereafter. That's why we're going there first, for a short amount of time, and then going on to Colorado. And it will also give him a chance to see firsthand some of the preparations that are underway on the ground.

Q But it sounds like a bit of a photo op, one that he'd prefer over playing the guitar at the airport photo op before Katrina.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, let's correct the record on that. There was a reporter from your news organization that was backstage during that event. That was an event to go and thank our troops and talk about the war on terrorism. And it was not an event, as you may have portrayed to some people that are watching this out there by this simple statement. It was --

Q He didn't pick up the guitar while the hurricane was rolling into Louisiana? MR.

McCLELLAN: -- much more than that. The person that was entertaining our troops there presented a gift to the President. So I think you need to make that clear to everybody who's watching this or to your viewers. And it was one of your colleagues at ABC News who was backstage taking a picture of that.

Q It was a very good picture and I'm proud of her, but the question I have --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but that picture was taken by someone -- hang on, hang on, Terry -- that picture was taken by some people way out of context. And it was portrayed that the President was simply doing that, and that's not the case, as you and I know.

Q The point was that he was over there and not --

MR. McCLELLAN: As you and I know, I had announced shortly before that, that we were returning the next morning. As you and I know, we had announced the President -- the day before -- all the briefings he was participating in. The President spoke the day before. He spoke that day about the hurricane. So let's just set the record straight.

Q Fair enough.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's unfair.

Q So the trip to Texas to take a look at the preparations and show support for the first responders is not a photo op?

The last half of this reparte is interesting. Really, there is no reason, other than political, for the president to fly down to Texas in advance of Rita. He's not a "first responder." By the way, as the W, Rove and Co has proven time and again, no where is it written that it has to be fair.

Tax Cuts

By the way, if we stop tax cuts in order to pay for the Katrina foul up, is that the same thing as increasing taxes? That's what this administration would have you believe:

Q Does the President think there's any need to maybe just take a deep breath and think twice about estate tax reform, or wait until next year to, sort of, see what the fiscal picture looks like?

MR. McCLELLAN: What are you suggesting?

Q I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question to elicit a response.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think there are some spending increases that we could look at that we believe don't need to be permanent, so that's an area where we can look. And there are number of areas where we're discussing with members of Congress about how to cut some of that unnecessary spending.

Q Without tax cuts?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I talked about the importance of keeping our economy growing. Our national economy is a key lifeline to the region that has been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. And you have the child tax credit and earned income tax credit -- those are important tax cuts for people in the region that have been deeply affected by Hurricane Katrina. We don't want to take those tax cuts away from them. The worst thing to do right now would be to increase taxes on the American people (bold italics added), because it would have a terrible impact on our economy.

So, it's okay to screw with social security but not the tax cuts becuase the wealthy would be affected. Only screwing with social security has no bearing on the wealthy becuase they don't need SS nor do they care about SS.

Q And one other topic. You mentioned Social Security. Most people out there, including a lot of members of the President's own party, say this issue is dead completely. What kind of timetable does the President have for getting this going? And why does he think that, presumably, next year, he's going to have an easier case selling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I mentioned, in terms of -- well, I'm not going to necessarily agree with your presumptions, but this remains a priority. In terms of the timetables, as I pointed out, we've got a very high priority right now, and that is -- well, two high priorities: Hurricane Katrina, the ongoing relief and recovery and rebuilding efforts; and Hurricane Rita, making sure we're prepared and able to fully respond to the needs of the people after that hits. In terms of other priorities, there were other priorities. We remain firmly committed to those priorities. They are important priorities. One of the issues that keeps coming up in this room is, what are we going to do to address some of the issues of spending. This is an area where we can address a long-term deficit problem, and it's also an area that we have an obligation to act on for future generations, for our children and grandchildren, who right now recognize that they're not going to -- they're not going to see anything from their Social Security checks unless we act. And it's an additional $600 billion a year each year that we wait, so there's substantial savings right there.

Q Has the President put estate tax changes and extending the tax cuts, making them permanent, has he put those on the back burner with the Treasury Secretary?

See Above for more on tax cuts.

What Went Wrong Should Go Right, No?

I found an interesting line of questioning during today's whitehouse press slogging. Scott McMessage McClellan is still not willing to admit they did anything wrong. Let's hope they get it right with the Rita.

Q Are you confident that the lessons learned from Katrina will be applied in the case of this hurricane?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I might want to point out, too, before I come to that question, too, that the disaster medical teams are in the region. You have nine -- at least nine search and rescue teams that are in the region so that they can deploy quickly once the storm has passed.

Q So the lessons learned from Katrina will be applied in the case of Rita?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of Katrina, that was a storm that was unprecedented in size and scope and devastation. It is something that we want to make sure all the lessons possible are learned, and we want to make sure that we know exactly what worked and what didn't work. And that's why we are working closely with Congress as they move forward on their investigation. That's why the President has tasked his Homeland Security Council to make sure that there is a comprehensive review of the preparedness and response relating to Katrina, so we're doing that. Now, in terms of Rita, I just talked about the steps that we're taking. And we're going to make sure that we are doing everything we can to have the strongest possible coordination with state and local governments as we prepared and respond to Hurricane Rita.

Q Well, Scott, continuing with what Steve said, how is what you're doing for Rita different from what you did from Katrina?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. A couple of things -- one, the President is focused on making sure we have the strongest possible coordination with state and local governments in the path of Hurricane Rita. We hope Rita is not devastating, but we must be prepared for the worst. Coordination at all levels needs to be seamless, or as seamless as possible, and that's what we're working to do. Homeland Security and FEMA officials are working closely with state and local governments so that resources can be targeted where they are most needed. They are redoubling efforts to make sure we have a full understanding of what the needs are so that we can make sure that those needs are met. And I went through several steps that were already taken to address these issues.

Q So that's -- you think that that's going to be an improvement over what was done in Katrina?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, in terms of Katrina, we're still focused on the immediate needs of the people in the region and working to make sure that they are getting back up on their feet, that we're moving forward on the recovery, that we're moving forward on the rebuilding to help people rebuild their lives and rebuild their communities. We are determined to learn the lessons of Katrina, and that's why we have been assessing what's been working and what hasn't been working and taking steps to address those issues. That's why we're also working closely with Congress, and the President is committed to making sure that there's a thorough investigation so that we can learn those lessons.

Q Well, can you distinguish what you're doing differently?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I just talked to you about where the President's focus is and what we are doing. We want to make sure that we're --

Q And these are things you didn't do in Katrina?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to make sure that we are better prepared and better positioned to respond to Hurricane Rita and that's what we're doing. That's why I outlined the several steps that we are taking. And that's why I just told you that the President is focused on making sure that we have the strongest possible coordination with state and local officials, and that we have --

Q Which you didn't have before, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- as seamless as possible coordination with state and local officials.

Q In other words, better than the last time?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just answered that question, Bill.

So, while there is no full out admission, we hope that what went wrong with Katrina goes right with Rita. Unfortunately, Scotty's unwritten credo must be: "When in doubt, obfuscate. When you know, obfuscate profusely"

War is a Noble Porno

Watched Tim Robbin's Embedded/Live last night, available only via Netflix. It was fun - if you like video of live stage performance. I think it would be better in person, particularly the spoof on the "special projects" committee (nee National Security Council).

It's worth a look as there may be many quote worthy phrases including the title to this post.

"I started writing 'Embedded.' And it came really fast."

"Embedded," which Robbins also directed, is a very smart, very screwball and ultimately very chilling comedy, dramatizing the interactions of journalists and U.S. troops during the invasion of "Gomorrah," an oil-rich rogue state ruled by the "Butcher of Babylon."

In the play, Robbins asks some of the tough questions that are still being debated about the pros and cons of the Pentagon's strategy of "embedding" journalists with military troops -- about the public's right to hear bad news along with the heroic, and about the feasibility of filtering the real stories through the spin in a modern-day, televised-round-the-clock war. "I found the television coverage of the war depressing," says Robbins, laying the blame not on what he saw but on everything he didn't see. "It just got numbing because of the attempt to make it action-packed, when in fact you weren't really seeing anything and you were just being told what to feel. So I just read a lot."

Oz meets Seuss

Found this quote in the NYTimes today:

"I'm not too sure if his heart is as big as his head."
HARRY REID the Senate Democratic leader, on Judge John G. Roberts Jr.

So, does Reid mean that Roberts is lacking heart like the Cowardly Lion or like the Grinch before Christmas?

OTR

By the way, is there much of anything that the President does that is off the record? From the press gaggle today aboard Airforce One - headed to yet another photo op for the W:

Q Can you give us any more information about the business that he's visiting? The recovering business in New Orleans?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll get it to you later. It's an OTR event for now.

By the way, didn't the Mayor of NO issue an evacuation order? How can the Prez plan a trek to NO if they have been ordered to evacuate it?

The Color of Change

I had asked a simliar question a while back, but it deserves repeating. If Katrina hit Boca Raton, Fl instead of the poorest portion of our fair country, would the response have been as negligent? Here's an intersting group that bloggers out there might like to support and even join:

Our sisters and brothers were left behind to die, because no one answers to them.

It's time to stand together and make a change.

Politicians ignore poor Black folks because they can't make big donations or deliver votes. And, to be real: a whole lot of "us" have tip-toed out of the hood and left them behind too, making our folk invisible even to us.

But they weren't invisible after Katrina hit. The media showed us faces we recognize—people who look like us, who work, who have families. We saw survivors, not "looters." We saw folks who remind us of ourselves, doing whatever they had to do to make it, refusing to die.

But it shouldn't have been like that.

This government NEVER would have left rich, white people to die like that.

If there were ever a time to step up, that time is now.

We are asking 250,000 African-Americans and concerned allies to make a commitment. To ensure that our brothers and sisters are protected, and that they are never left behind again. To make sure that our folks in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast have a chance to be a major part of the rebuilding effort, and that they are given a chance to thrive. To ensure that Bush cannot use this crisis as yet another way to fatten the pockets of his friends and supporters, and further erode our government's support for those that need it the most.

No matter what your race or income level, you know what you saw was wrong.

We are Black people calling out to every race and hue to stand against this injustice. Let's all become the color of change.

Let's Hope They Don't Rely on the Same "Intel"

Looks like the North Koreans are worried we will start carpet bombing them. Fear is the weapon of choice for big bullies. Let's hope the W, Rove and Co employ some other kind of veracity checks than the ones used to find WMD in Iraq:

"They have said, in principle, that they will abandon their weapons programs. And what we have said is great, that's a wonderful step forward, but now we've got to verify whether or not that happens."PRESIDENT BUSH, on a nuclear agreement with North Korea.

Frivolous Legislation - more proof of Presidential Malpracitice

At least Bolton now has to go through some kind of congressional oversight review, up holding a long standing tradition of checks and blanances - with which this administration is in dire need.

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, to which position he was appointed during the recess of the Senate from July 29, 2005, to September 1, 2005.

John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, to which position he was appointed during the recess of the Senate from July 29, 2005, to September 1, 2005.

Now wait just one minute...didn't the General Assembly already happen? Why are they nominating him for something he has already done? Are they trying to snake him into the UN post with out a true review, or are they trying to clog up the Senate with frivolous legistlation?

The Game Behind the Blame: Or subtitle: Meanwhile, What's Uncle Karl Up to?

Dirty Tricks as Usual, or should we call it the Game behind the Blame:

Q Scott, it seems that Karl Rove has already made the assessment for the administration as to what went wrong with Katrina, because according to reports, he said in Aspen, at the Sportsmen's Annual Off the Record that the only mistake that we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government. If this is, indeed, true, what would have been done differently?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure that's an accurate account.

Q Well, there are reports that you guys are trying to blame it on the local government --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the report is put out by critics, so I'm just not going to --

Q `Well, what would have been done differently, then, if what Karl Rove is saying is true? If you would have taken over? The response was late, the federal government --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one of the issues that the President talked about that needs to be looked at is in a case like this where you have a storm of this magnitude and scope, one like we've never seen before, then -- and the local and state first responders are essentially overwhelmed, then what do you do to address that issue? Does the federal government -- we need to look at the role of the federal government, specifically the military. We set up the Northern Command after September 11th -- that was the first time the military had set up a Northern Command here to cover America. They have commands all across the world. But he said the other day that we need to look at this issue. And the military brings with it the logistics and capabilities needed to move in quickly and address some of these issues. So that's one of the areas that needs to be looked at as we move forward, to apply the lessons from this response effort.

Q So was that the only mistake, or are there more mistakes --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what the investigation will look into. They'll look at all these issues so that we can make sure we're better prepared in the future.

P.S. Let's not forget that October, rapidly approaching, is the month we were promised results on the Plame Leak investigation. If they weren't basing their opperations out of the Gulf Coast, shouldn't they be coming out soon?

Good Question

One reporter sneaks in a decent quetion:

Q Scott, we all understand that the President has proposed cuts in his budget -- it's his budget and he has a desire to work with Congress. But the budget pre-dated Katrina. Given that his leadership has come under question because of the hurricane, why does he not articulate a vision for the future, beyond endless deficits? What are the cuts going to be?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually, we've talked about this over that last couple of weeks, Ed, maybe you've missed some of those discussions, because we have briefed you all on it. Obviously, you have significant costs that are going to be borne by the federal government in the relief and rebuilding efforts related to Katrina, but we have an obligation to help meet the needs of the people. The private sector and individuals are also showing the generosity of America and providing significant support to the people who have lost all of what they had or much of what they had in the region, as well. And we've -- I'm sorry, what?

Q That's not what I'm asking.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think it's important for your readers or the people watching this to be able to have a full understanding of the picture. And that's why it's important to talk -- all these are interrelated, Ed. And I think it's important for people to hear these things. But you're asking specifically about spending cuts, right?

Q Yes -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have proposed significant savings in our budget. As I said, that's a good starting point. But the President recognizes that the significant costs that we're going to -- that are going to be borne by the federal government relating to the Katrina rebuilding efforts needs to be offset by additional cuts elsewhere in the budget. And that's why we are working with Congress to identify areas where we can cut. And those areas would be the unnecessary spending. We've got important priorities that we've got to meet, and we will meet those priorities, but we need to look for cuts elsewhere in the budget. The President has always outlined budgets to fund our priorities and then hold the line on spending elsewhere, where they're not the essential or necessary spending that is needed. And that's a process that Congress has an important role to play in, and we've got to work closely with them to do that. But I think everybody recognizes, also, that the costs we're talking about related to Katrina are going to have a short-term impact on the deficit, they're one-time costs. But we believe we can continue to meet the President's commitment to halve the deficit by 2009.

Q Is he dusting off his veto pen?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you know, the President does not have line-item veto power. That is something that we have advocated and believe he should have, and that's something we continue to urge Congress to act on, as well. But he's also made it -- and Congress has been moving forward on the budget that we outlined to meet some of the overall budget framework that we outlined. But there are additional actions that can be taken on savings that we proposed. That's a good starting point, and then we'll also be looking at other areas we can cut, too. Q Just a quick -- one last question. Does the President, then, agree with Representative DeLay that there's no more fat in the budget?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually David asked that question at the beginning, and I talked about how Congress has yet to act on some of the savings that we've proposed, and that we also need to look at other unnecessary spending --

Q The answer is "no."

Did Scotty answer the first question? I don't think so.

Not only is it Worrisome, but...

The fact that the W, Rove and Co have no answer for Clinton should scare us more. Have a look at this nice exchange from todays McMessage briefing:

Q So I take it you're not going to talk directly about President Clinton, even though he was talking very directly about you all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if we want to talk about policies, I'm glad to talk about that. But I think we've made our views clear and the results are helping all Americans.

Q Can I just follow on that? Can I just quote the former President? He says, "You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people. If you tell people to do something that don't have the means to do it, you're going to lead the poor out," talking about the people who lost homes who have no property insurance. He said, "Everything they own was in their little home. If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out, and also lots of empty vans to save the belongings of those with no home or flood insurance." Now, you've said the President was unhappy with the effort. Does the President basically agree with what Bill Clinton is saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say "the effort," I said, "the results."

Q "The results."

MR. McCLELLAN: You can't discount all the work that was done by the search and rescue teams and the Coast Guard and the first responders, the state and local people that were on the scene trying to save lives. And as the President said, the storm didn't discriminate, neither did the federal government response. We were trying to save the lives of all those who had been affected by this. The Coast Guard search and rescue teams were trying to save the lives of everybody they could in the city.

Q Well, given the President's unhappiness, does the administration basically agree that Bill Clinton is right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've expressed our views. He can speak with his own views. But I think the President has clearly expressed our views. And in terms of the issue when it comes to the elderly and vulnerable and the poor, those that didn't necessarily have the means to get out of the area -- the President has spoken at length about that. He made it very clear that some of the greatest hardship fell on those individuals -- the elderly, the vulnerable, and the poor. And the rebuilding of the region is an opportunity to renew our commitment to equality and justice for all Americans by building a better and stronger region. And that's what he's committed to doing. There is a deep history of injustice that has led to poverty and inequality, and this storm has brought to light, in a more vivid way, some of that inequality and poverty that exists in the region. And it's not going to be overcome instantly. But this President, from day one, has been acting boldly to address these issues and to achieve results.

Q If he was so bold, why do we have 37 million people living below the poverty line? MR.

McCLELLAN: Well, do you want me to go back and talk about the economy?

Q I mean, if his policies are so great.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to go -- more Americans are working than ever before, Helen. We've --

Q Thirty-seven million below the poverty --

...Q Following up on John's question about what President Clinton said, you've said and the President has said this storm did not discriminate. But the point that President Clinton was making isn't -- wasn't about the relief recovery after the storm hit, it was about the preparations beforehand. He was talking about the fact that buses should have been there to get people out who couldn't have done it themselves. So is that something that President Bush should have been more attuned to? Or is that something that he really relied on the Mayor --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's going to be a bipartisan investigation by Congress. They're going to do a thorough investigation and look at all these issues. There were certain -- there were responsibilities at all levels of government: the federal, state, and local. The President has made it very clear that he accepts responsibility for the federal government's role. He wants to see what went wrong and what needs to be fixed for the future so that we can make sure that we are better prepared in the future to respond to such situations, whether they be natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

Q Does the President still think it was a good idea to get President Clinton on board and give him this kind of platform?

MR. McCLELLAN: We appreciate the efforts of President Bush and President Clinton to reach out to the private sector and individuals to encourage even more giving from the American people to support those who have been affected by this natural disaster. And, look, this is a difference over policies. I think when you boil it down to -- boil it down, it's just difference over policies. And that's why I said we welcome a discussion of the policies to address the causes of poverty and inequality that have occurred, that -- I mean, it's a long history that led to the poverty and inequality; it is a long history of injustice, that goes back to slavery and segregation. And we need to address these issues, and this President has been working to address those issues in new and bold ways. And all you have to do is go and look at the record and look at what we've accomplished for the American people, particularly for low-income Americans and people that are living in poverty. The Medicare is another one; seniors starting in 2006, low-income seniors are going to have virtually everything paid for when it comes to their prescription drug benefit.