When You Commit A Crime, Do You Get A Promotion or Fired If You Work For The President?

Any one taking bets on whether the perps get fired or a promotion? The whitehouse spokesmodel is not saying:

Q Scott, a question about the leak investigation. The President has said in the months past that he would dismiss anyone who was responsible for leaking classified information. He was pretty clear-cut on that point. What would he do, though, if there were other charges -- charges like perjury or obstruction of justice? Would any member of the White House staff who is accused of such charges be expected to resign immediately, or would they be summarily fired by the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to speculate about an ongoing investigation at this point. I don't want to pre-judge the outcome of it. The President has spoken to it previously. The investigation continues and --

Q Right, but can't you -- since he has spoken to it previously, which is why I knew you wouldn't comment about the investigation -- but he has spoken to that point rather clearly. And, yet, he's raised some questions about what he might do in other --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's an ongoing investigation at this point, and I don't want to comment on it any further. You heard from the President earlier today, indicate that as well. And to get into commenting on it --

Q So you won't clarify for the American people as a matter of policy whether a White House advisor who faces criminal charges should be immediately --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has stated his views, but I'm not going to speculate beyond that, because the investigation continues. Let's let that investigation continue; it is a serious matter. The President wants to get to the bottom of it, and we support the work of the special prosecutor and I expect he'll have more to say on it soon -- as you all expect, as well.

Q How does the President feel about some White House allies, including Senator Hutchison yesterday, essentially making the argument that should the special counsel bring charges that involve a cover-up -- obstruction of justice or perjury -- that those are, in effect, technicalities and aren't really worthy of all the effort and money spent on this investigation? MR.

McCLELLAN: I appreciate that, but asking me to comment would be speculating about an ongoing investigation -- I'm just not going to do that. Let's let --

Q Well, wait a minute --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, the President was asked this question --

Q That's kind of a dodge, don't you think?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President was asked this question earlier today. What we want to do is continue to support the work of the special prosecutor. The best way to do that is not to get into commenting on it --

Q There are allies of this White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- or speculating about it.

Q -- who are beginning to go out there and effectively lay the groundwork to trash the special counsel. Does the President want to put a stop to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's let the investigation continue and we'll see what the special prosecutor does.

Q He doesn't want to take an advantage of an opportunity to either say, you know what, we shouldn't speak that way, or, no, I endorse those views?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it clear that we're not going to have any further comment from the White House while the investigation continues.

Q But you'll let surrogates do it?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. You said that.

...but Scotty, it's true, no? Oh, yeah. You don't answer questions you don't like.

Why Are We Killing Iraqis?

Another fantastic line of questions from Helen Thomas in a long awaited press conference with Scotty McMessage McClellan:

Go ahead, Helen.

Q You were going to make a statement, White House statement on the approach of the 2,000 Americans dead in Iraq at the earlier briefing, didn't you? At the gaggle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have a question?

Q The question is, what is the feeling about that? And also, does the President approve now of finally telling how many Iraqis we killed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. One, we have lost over 2,200 men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no higher priority for the President of the United States than the safety and security of the American people. It is a responsibility he takes very seriously. No President wants to go to war. But four years ago, or just over four years ago, war was brought to our shores. This nation remains engaged in a global war on terrorism. It is a war against Islamic radicals who seek to spread their hateful and murderous ideology. Our men and women in uniform volunteered to defend the freedoms we hold so dearly. They are the ones who are on the front lines in this global struggle that we are engaged in. We mourn the loss of each and every one of our men and women in uniform who have made the ultimate sacrifice to make the world freer and more peaceful. We are forever grateful for their sacrifice, and we will always remember and honor what they have done. They have given their life in defense of freedom, and the best way to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice is to prevail in the war on terrorism. And that's --

Q And kill more people?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's exactly what we will do. We will prepare --

Q The Iraqis did not attack us.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me just finish my response. I appreciate that. We will prevail in the war on terrorism. Our men and women in uniform are doing an outstanding job in helping us to win this war. And the President made a decision after September 11th that we were going to wage a broad and comprehensive war on terrorism --

Q Against any country?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are taking the fight to the enemy to bring people to justice before they can carry out their attacks. We are also working to spread freedom and change the Middle East. We are no longer accepting the status quo in the Middle East. And one thing --

Q That's not your role, is it? What right do you have to do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: And one thing that Secretary Rice talked about was the significant -- in the Cabinet meeting -- was the significant change that we've seen in the Middle East over the last three to four years. We're seeing democracy take hold in Afghanistan. We're seeing democracy take hold in Iraq. The Iraqi people are showing through their courage and determination that they want to live in freedom. The Iraqi election commission just reported this weekend that some 63 percent of Iraqis showed up to vote; some 9.8 million people -- Q Do we expect sovereignty of nations?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, Helen. Our troops understand the importance of the mission. They are laying the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren. We live in a dangerous world; the threats are real --

Q That's why you're killing Iraqis?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and they are dangerous. But our men and women in uniform understand the enemy that we're up against, and they understand the stakes involved. We are forever grateful for their sacrifice; we're forever grateful for the sacrifice of the families of the fallen, as well. That's why the President visits with the families on a regular basis, to comfort them, console them, and to remind them of the importance of what their loved one sacrificed for.

For great questions, you get rhetoric and propaganda. Should Scotty be fired or would his replacement simply replicate the reprehensible conduct of a worn out administration.

Rotten at the Core

I don't know about you, but this coming election cycle I am anti-incumbent. 2006 should be about a wholesale find an replace to fix what is rotten in our government from the core out. I was commenting over at Moxie Grrl and had a reply to another person's comment that explains my postion:

In D.C. only concrete actions account for strong messages. When your government fails to help you after a hurricane, it hurts.

When the voters speak, particularly those not privy to large corporate pools of dollars to pay well shod lobbyists to speak for them, it's usually by voting. Unfortunately, particularly with this administration, they take a false majority and parley that into a "mandate from the people." And, the democrats are simply folding over - not a real spine among them. I would be happy to examine the record of anyone you suggest might be in possession of such a spine, but I think we may need to look for help outside the beltway to fix what's wrong with our system. It stinks from the inside out and the shit rains on the constituents.

In the end, a wholesale find and replace would be a strong message. Even better would be replacing all incumbents with strong, liberal and fiscally smart thinkers. I know they are hard to find, but they are out there - they have yet to present themselves.

Anyway, there may be one or two that need to stick around, but just by the fact that they are in there suggest that they like the system the way it is. The rot needs to be cleaned from the very dirty core, all the way to the nasty, failing and falling apart fringes. Like the mob, it's time for us to call in the governmental cleaners as there is nary a clean hand in this bloody mess.

When the time comes, I hope you all are with me to send a very strong message that will change the artificial mandate this administration has capitalized on and vote the bastards out.

Oh, What a Tangled Web

No child left behind is hemorrhaging. Should private companies be allowed to run amok in our public schools? Hell, let's just privatize the whole thing. That aught fix it. Right.

Did you know that your tax dollars are being used to pay for private tutors for some, but not all, students? I've said this many times, and above in my blog header - There is a dramatic difference between an equal opportunity for an education and an equal opportunity for an equal education.

It sounded simple enough: Help low-income students perform better in public schools deemed in need of improvement by giving them tutors. And let the federal government pick up the tab.

But what appeared to be an easy way to address a component of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act has become anything but. The federal government, state education departments, local school systems and many of the 1,700 or so private education companies offering tutoring are battling over complex rules. Just who can tutor what, to whom -- and where?

...Critics have said that although the idea behind Supplemental Education Services is laudable, the Bush administration's rules are tilted in favor of the private sector."The Bush administration very much wants to encourage private [companies] to get involved in elementary and secondary public education," said Jack Jenning, director of the nonprofit Center on Education Policy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. "They are finding any way they can to encourage federal money to be shifted to private companies . . . . Their whole bias is in favor of private companies and against school districts."

Another Lesson For Georgie

"This I Remember" by Eleanor Roosevelt is actually a very interesting read. I'm enjoying it. She has a down to earth style. And she strikes me as a person who must have held warmth, brains, and talent, laced with a strong sense of humility. If alive today, I am almost certain she would disapprove of the behavior of the reigning inhabitants of the Whitehouse as well as many of the Congressional hoi pilloi. This from page 132:

Nothing we learn in this world is ever wasted and I have come to the conclusion that practically nothing we do ever stands by itself. If it is good, it will serve some good purpose in the future. If it is evil, it may haunt us and handicap our efforts in unimagined ways...

...Oh, yes, the human values were most rewarding, even if the financial returns to the government were not satisfactory [re: Social Security]...

...This was a truth that proved itself many times over during his presidency. Not only old friends, but with various other people he had frequent run-ins over the new theory that government had a responsibility to the people.

Karen Hughes: Effective Expense of US Taxpayer Dollars?

Excuse me, but here's another example of GW's pals continuing to lie to the global population. Why is it that US Taxpayers are paying her salary?

Jakarta, Indonesia -- The Bush administration's envoy, Karen Hughes, visited Indonesia on Friday as part of her campaign to repair U.S. standing with the world's Muslims, and defended the invasion of Iraq by telling skeptical students that deposed President Saddam Hussein had gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Her remark was an impassioned answer to familiar criticisms of U.S. policy raised by her audience at one of Indonesia's leading Islamic universities. But it was also wrong.
State Department officials later acknowledged that Hughes -- whom President Bush handpicked to set the record straight on U.S. policies in the Muslim world -- had misreported history.

If The Donald rather than The Dubbya were in charge, I am sure we would all hear the familiar refrain: "You're Fired!"

After Introducing the Experiment, Flat Results Mean What?

When conducting research using typical experimental design, scientists measure results by comparing the control and experimental groups. After the experimental events are introduced, one can discern if there is any difference between the two groups and make justifiable decisions as to whether the experiment is worth repeating.

When our Government introduces sweeping public policy, because such policy is usually pushed whole hog on the population, no control group remains. Instead, one has to use historical measures in a "before and after" style test for change. If there is no improvement over standard operating procedure, the only conclusion that could be reached is that there is a null effect.

That is, unless of course, the experiment is "no child left behind," which is a rather costly endeavor that was supposed to improve our schools. Is it worth replicating going forward? Certainly, the W, Rove and Co is going to desperately grasp at this policy as one of the very few "positive" initiatives started by their administration. Unfortunately for our children, the focus on testing is misplaced as a means to push the teaching of powerful, positive learning behavior.

Ask yourself this: When you needed to know how to do something you have never done before, how did you learn it? The time for curricular and infrastructure reform in our Nation's schools is becoming over ripe. Like the stale piece of fruit in your bowl, the fruit flies are flocking and the mold is starting to bloom. When "no child left behind" (which incidentally, the W, Rove and Co is going to be sued for stealing the moniker from a non-profit agency) produces no result, this signals a time to move on to something else.

The Editorial that spurred this post is posted in full below as it is rather short:

The Bush administration responded characteristically this week when it put a positive gloss on national math and reading scores that were actually dismal - and bad news for the school reform effort. Faced with charges that his signature reform, the No Child Left Behind Act, was failing, the president played up the minor positive results. He should have seized the moment to acknowledge the bad news and explain what it would take to make things right.

He should also, of course, have reminded the nation that as long as it fails to take school reform seriously, American children will fall further and further behind their peers abroad.

The fourth grade reading scores on this year's National Assessment of Educational Progress were basically flat compared with 2003, even though the states are supposed to be ramping up student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap between poor and wealthy students. Fourth graders' math performance was also a clear disappointment, at a time when the country hopes to catch up with the international competition in science.

Critics of No Child Left Behind were quick to pounce, arguing that student progress was more impressive, by some measures, before the law kicked in. The truth is less depressing, but still extremely daunting. No Child Left Behind has reached that perilous interim phase that all reforms must eventually pass through if they are to survive. It has reaped the easy gains that were achieved by merely paying more attention to the problem. The next level of progress will require deeper systemic change, especially in the realm of teacher quality.

Most states have avoided this core issue and simply opted for repackaging a deeply inadequate teacher corps. Real reform will require better teacher training and higher teacher qualifications, which will in turn mean cracking the whip on teachers' colleges that have basically ignored the standards movement. The federal government was supposed to confront this issue head-on, but has tiptoed around it for several years. This week's test scores are not the end of reform. But they could well spell the beginning of a downward spiral unless Congress, federal officials and the states all pull together to move the country out of this trough and onto higher ground. That will mean hard work and more money - and a direct confrontation with the politically explosive issue of teacher preparedness. Happy talk won't get it done.

~2K KIA

Meanwhile, we are almost at two thousand GIs who can't vote in the next election because they are dead.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq: 1,992 and counting

Three U.S. Marines and a U.S. Army soldier were killed in Iraq Thursday, bringing the U.S. death toll for the war to 1,992. If U.S. troops continue to die at the pace they have so far this month, the American death toll in Iraq will reach 2,000 before the weekend is over.

As We Move Toward November

All eyes should be trained on Patrick Fitzgerald. Now, he has a web location. I'll be checking frequently it after bookmarking it on a tip from Crooks and Liars.

What's Happened to Scotty?

No press briefing texts for the past two days, I suffer from withdrawl. Has Scotty be dethroned as the W, Rove and Co. spokesmodel? Anyone seen him lately?

Looks like Fran Townsend filled in for some updates on the forthcoming huricane aimed at florida. Does anyone in Florida or the Gulf Coast Area feel safer given her talking points?

Q Fran, in the other part of his testimony, he said that there was a systemic failure at all levels of government. In what you've looked at so far, what you've heard from people so far, do you think that reaches to the White House and to the President?

MS. TOWNSEND: The answer is a bad information flow at all levels will result in less than good, solid decision-making [bold and italics added]. And I think it's too early for me to say, because I don't have a comprehensive chronology yet. We're building that and it's getting stronger every day. I want to see that. But the President has made perfectly clear, if there are mistakes, wherever they are and wherever the problems are, we're to identify them, regardless of where that leads us. And we will go wherever the facts lead us.

Q Just one follow-up, if you don't mind. You talked about not wanting to finger-point. But you have to point fingers at someone and some things and some -- in order to fix things. So why the disconnect?

MS. TOWNSEND: I don't think there is a disconnect. Here's how I -- I'm not suggesting -- you will find -- I'm reading lessons learned in other context to understand how people did it, and I've talked to the United States military, which is the agency of government that's got the most experience right now with lessons learned. The answer is, we will -- you do need a narrative of facts to emphasize particular points and particular weaknesses. And to that extent -- I didn't mean to suggest -- there will be facts we need to use and to point to, to explain what the problem is, and how a particular recommendation solves that problem. So I'm not -- I'm gathering facts because I need them to make -- it really underscores your point -- but what I'm saying to you is, I'm not going to -- I refuse to be dragged down into a blame game and a finger-pointing exercise. That's not my role. And frankly, what I need to be able to do is to identify the systemic and process and procedural problems that resulted in the failures.

Q Fran, you talked about lessons learned. You've got another hurricane right now hovering down around Yucatan, which will probably end up making a beeline for Florida. What are some of the lessons learned thus far that might have to be applied and might be very applicable to the hurricane when it hits Florida? How is FEMA going to handle that?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, for the specific details of this, I would refer you to DHS. But let me talk a little bit about some examples of things we understand. We are deploying more communications gear, both through FEMA and DOD, down into the affected areas. We have NORTHCOM planners now stationed at FEMA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. that we didn't have the last time, to make sure that the connection between the military and civilian authority, federal authority in this country is closer. We have -- we've got people downrange in Florida working with state and local officials who I would emphasize are in the lead. We are there in support. The Governor has made clear what assistance he needs or does not need, and so, based on Governor Bush's requirements, we are positioned to meet them more effectively and efficiently, based on what we did the last time.

Systematic Failure at All Levels of Government

The American population deserve a better goverment. Here's another article that points toward the obvious conclusion that we are in dire need for a regime change here at home - call me anti-incumbant in '06:

Mr. Bahamonde sent a series of messages as the hours and days passed, desperation growing. Most startling, he told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday, was that his supervisors in Washington did not seem to understand. In a series of e-mail messages in which he warned of worsening problems, he was told that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed time to eat dinner at a restaurant in Baton Rouge, La., and to have a television interview.

"It was sad, it was inhumane, it was heartbreaking, and it was so wrong," Mr. Bahamonde said of the conditions and the response. "There was a systematic failure at all levels of government to understand the magnitude of the situation[bold and italics added]."

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Why do you suppose DeLay is smiling? I grabbed this pic from the following news post via Yahoo. Aparently, DeLay is smug enough to think he is going to get off scott free from this indictment. Perhaps we can come up with some snarky captions for this pic. I'll post my first stab at the first comment below. Give 'er a try and have some fun.

Usually Loyal, The Military Starts to Fight Back - Tired of Getting Screwed by Their Civilian Leadership

Here's an interesting article from the Financial Times (full text of Wilkerson's speech is is also available). I find it interesting that the usually loyal subjects in the military are finally speaking out about the dysfunction perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co.

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences...”

“...If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”

The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.“He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

Among his other charges:
■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.

■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.

Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.

“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”

If you ask me, any time there is a "cabal" within our government, it's time for a regiem change.

Reverse Robin Hood

More ironic, or more apropos, moronic decision making by the folks running our government today. As if you need more evidence to be anti-incumbent in the 2006 election cycle:

As soon as tomorrow morning, the House of Representatives will consider a Republican amendment to permanently slash funding for basic health care, nutrition and education services for the poor. The budget proposal already calls for $35 billion in cuts, but top Republicans want to push it up to $50 billion. Meanwhile, the same budget proposal calls for $70 billion in new tax breaks, largely for the wealthy.1 It's reverse Robin Hood politics—robbing the poor to pay back the rich.

"I Already Answered That;" Uh, No You Didn't Scotty!

Correct me if I am wrong, but Helen Thomas has another set of good questions that remains unanswered even though Scotty McMessage McClellan said he gave one:

Q Scott, did the President talk to Karl Rove two years ago about the leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, I appreciate the question. That's a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and I'm just not going to have further comment while that investigation is underway.

Q Because The New York Daily News says the President rebuked Rove two years ago.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of news reports out there and I've seen a lot of conflicting news reports, and we're just not going to comment any further on an ongoing investigation.

Q It behooves you to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's a special prosecutor doing his work, Helen, and we want him to come to a successful conclusion. And that's what we're doing, is cooperating --

Q This is a question that directly affects the President, and --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

Q -- you should say it's true, or not true.

MR. McCLELLAN: As you have known for sometime now, we've been saying that while this is an ongoing investigation what we're going to do from the White House is cooperate fully with that investigation and let the special prosecutor do his work. We're not going to speculate or prejudge the outcome.

Q We're not asking you to speculate. We're asking you, is this report true or not.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I've already answered that.

I love Helen's last statement - Of course, these folks are half way down the road to hell in a handbasket, yet they still refuse to answer many salient questions. Goes to state of mind of the W, Rove and Co if you ask me.

Rock and Roll, Coochie Coo

Well, I wouldn't mind being "like a fly on the wall" (bonus points to the person who can name the U2 song this lyric comes from) for the W, Bono tete-a-tete today. I wish that Bono would give him an earful given his prior ties to Amnesty International, but I doubt he will. Nice that Irish citizens can bend the ear of the President over lunch. I wonder who footed the bill for that? US Taxpayers?

A couple of other updates on the President's schedule. The President right now is having lunch over in the residence with Bono. As you are aware, Bono is in town for some concerts. This meeting with Bono follows up on their discussion at Gleneagles during the G8 summit that took place in Scotland. They have a very good discussion at the G8 about our common priorities. Both share a deep commitment to combating AIDS, preventing malaria, and expanding trade to lift people out of poverty, particularly in developing countries. And Bono is scheduled to be meeting with Steve Hadley, as well, today -- our National Security Advisor -- to talk about some of those issues, too...

...Q Scott, two questions. This is a serious one. Since you raised Bono, is there --

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were serious, too.

Q But this is serious about Bono. Is there a possibility he might be given a position in the administration? He's a big name.

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. I think he's enjoying the career that he has right now and doing all the good work that he does on behalf of people who are suffering in developing countries.

Q But is he considered an advisor or supporter of the administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's someone who has a lot of influence and is committed to helping people who are in need, and lifting people out of poverty, and helping those who are suffering from AIDS. And those are priorities that the President shares. And so they've had some discussions over the last few years, and we appreciate the opportunity to visit with him.

Humm...I don't quite know what to make of Bono at this point. Was he giving W hell or was he kissing ass (or I should type "arse" given his nationality). Any thoughts in the blogoshiphere about this meeting? Please comment below.

Actually Scott, You are Wrong.

If you believe the current adminstration's spokesmodel, there is no room for interpretation of the Constitution within the context of the rule of law that ends in "new" law. Take a look:

Q Why is it that most judges who have the personal view that abortion ought to be legal end up finding in the law that it should be legal, and most judges who have personal views, religious or otherwise, that it's wrong, and shouldn't be legal, end up finding in the law that it's illegal?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know which specific instance you're referring to. I mean, I haven't done that kind of analysis myself. But I know what the American people want. The American people want judges that are going to interpret our Constitution and our laws and not make law from the bench. That's what the role of a judge is. The role of a judge is to look at the facts and look at the law and then apply the law. And Harriet Miers is someone who recognizes that ideology and religion have no role to play when you're making decisions on the bench. That's what the American people expect in a Supreme Court nominee or any judicial nominee.

In fact, Scotty is wrong here. The true purpose of the Supreme Court is overt. Indeed, it is to make difficult rulings on complicated cases while interpreting the constitution amid the existing rule of law. Here's a quote from their own documentation:

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court crucial responsiblity in assuring individual rights, as well as maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

"To Move Forward on a Free and Peaceful Future" - Sub Title: More Tragedy in Iraq

Helen Thomas always brings up the hard questions that befuddle Scotty. I love her:

Q Dispatches from Iraq said that yesterday we killed 70 people in Iraq, near Ramadi, including 18 children. I want to know what the President thinks of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, I think you need to talk to the military, because the military --

Q No, I'm talking here.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and as I'm responding to you, the military has said otherwise at this point. Now, the military has review mechanisms in place and when there are questions raised, they look into those matters, and so that's something that, obviously, they will look into. But, beyond that, you'd have to talk to the military about where that stands. Now --

Q Eighteen children --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in terms of our United States military, our military goes out of the way not to target --

Q Why were 18 children killed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our military goes out of the way not to target innocent civilians.

Q I'm not saying they were targeted --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our military goes out of the way to target the enemy, and to --

Q Why did they say 18 children?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- bring to justice the terrorists and those who are seeking to prevent democracy from taking hold, through violent means, to justice. And that's what our military does. And they do --

Q Seventy people were killed by an air strike.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, please let me respond, because I think it's important to point this out when you're bringing up a question like this. We fully support our men and women in uniform. They're doing an outstanding job to defend our freedoms and to help the Iraqi people move forward on a free --

Q I'm not saying -- I'm saying why did they kill 70 people?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to move forward on a free and peaceful future. I think everybody in this room would like me to have the opportunity to be able to talk to you about this question. And you're assuming things that people have different recollections about right now, or have characterized very differently. And that's why I said the military has review mechanisms in place, when situations like this arise, and they look into those matters. That's why you need to talk to the military, to see where that stands.

Q Are the figures wrong in all the newspapers?

MR. McCLELLAN: The military is looking into the matter, Helen. I don't have any more information at this point.

Q If I could follow on Helen's question, though. Whatever the facts of this particular situation are, war is an inexact business, and children do get killed. And what I think she's asking is for a response from the President about children who may have been killed as a result of American action.

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, I don't want to assume, because this is an incident that's being looked into.

Q I'm not assuming. I'm not assuming.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I want to also make the point -- and I think you can go back and look at this -- yes, war is always the last resort. It's not something that's pleasant. But it is a decision that sometimes the Commander-in-Chief has to make in order to protect the American people. And he made the decision that we were going to go on the offensive in this global war on terrorism that we're engaged in, and that's exactly what we're doing, and that we're going to work to spread freedom and democracy in a part of the world that is in need of hope. And you have to recognize the struggle that we're engaged in.

And there are people in Iraq, terrorists, who recognized how high the stakes are, and they're seeking to do everything they can to stop the democratic process from advancing. And there are attacks carried out on some of our troops. And when those attacks are carried out on our troops, you have others that respond to that. And we appreciate all that our men and women in uniform are doing when it comes to defending our freedoms abroad.

Now, in terms of any innocent people being killed, we mourn the loss of any innocent life that is lost. We have seen that the terrorists have no regard for innocent human life. That's the difference between the enemy and between those in the civilized world who are committed to spreading freedom and peace. We target the enemy; they target innocent civilians. And there's a stark contrast in how we go about waging this war on terrorism. They carry out cowardly acts against innocent civilians. We go after those who seek to do harm to those innocent civilians.

Excuse me, but what's the fucking difference?

Personal v. Judicial Philosophy

Is it me, or am I the only one who thinks the reason Miers was nominated by the W, Rove and Co was that her personal and judicial philosophy match this administrations views on what a good activist judge might be? Aren't personal and judical philosophies inseperable?

Q And you separate the questionnaire as a --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would also -- I think Senator Schumer indicated to you all yesterday that Harriet Miers said that no one knows how she would view on any particular case.

Q So then we should regard this -- or the Senate should regard this just as a personal view, not as an indication of her judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, her judicial philosophy is how I just described it. And she'll be talking more about it as she moves forward on the confirmation process. She's already visited with some 18 senators before today as part of the courtesy visits. She's visiting with an additional two senators today. And she will continue those visits in the coming weeks -- through the remainder of this week, and in the coming weeks as they move forward toward the confirmation hearings. And then at the confirmation hearings, senators will have an opportunity to visit with her and ask her questions about her views and her experience and her judicial philosophy. And she looks forward to the opportunity to answer those questions at that time.

Q Was that document a part of the vetting process and the package of materials that the President reviewed prior to selecting Harriet Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the President, they did not discuss this particular issue -- I think we've already indicated that -- or any other issue that may be viewed as controversial. The President doesn't have a litmus test, and that -- what we said before still stands. The President appoints people to the bench based on their qualifications and their experience and their judicial temperament. And that's what he makes the decision on. Now, in terms of the vetting process, there's a very thorough process that goes on for people to the President Supreme Court and people to other judicial vacancies, and it was a thorough vetting process.

Q Would that have included providing that kind of documentation to the President? Whether there was discussion, he could have simply read the --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll see if there's more information on that. But, no, the President, as we have indicated, doesn't have a litmus test, so those are not questions he discusses with his nominees. And I'll see if there's any additional --

Q But did he read it, is what I'm asking. Was he aware of it prior to --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I said -- I'll see if there's any additional information to add.

The whole abortion issue is truly a red herring for those who might oppose Miers' nomination. As, I have said in the past, they don't have a litmus test becuase they already know her "heart." They don't need to ask.

Affirmative Action for Friends of the President

• Here's an interesting link I picked up over at Moxie Grrrl. Enjoy.

The Shit Must Go Somewhere

Interesting op-ed today in the Times. Iraqi "constitution" aside, it's still a time bomb. And there is no telling when we will get our troops home. Perhaps, even, the intent from the outset was to never leave. Have a look:

Anyone who thinks that such a constitution would calm the insurgency has probably been spending more time than he should have reading about Alice in Wonderland. I believe that should the constitution pass, the next few weeks will see an escalation of the unnecessary violence that has ripped my country apart. Unnecessary, because the ordinary citizen has no political agenda, and has found himself amid a war he neither understands nor cares about - a war waged by foreigners who could not care less about Iraq or Iraqis. All he seeks is the most basic necessities of life: electricity, security, a job, food, health care, clean water and working sewers.

Again, it's a shame the President doesn't read. Certainly, as the republicans prove over and again they are not the peoples' party, they are expanding that agenda in other countries as well: the very definition of imperialism.

Republican: The Party of Treason

A friend pointed me to this interesting article over at DailyKOS, which was originally posted at AMERICAblog:

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot.

We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That's exactly what they're doing. On numerous news shows today, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

- It's the criminalization of politics
- Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?
- Political payback is common and should not be criminalized
- Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

Yes, the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

The GOP has become the party of treason.

Head on over to finish the post. It's worth the click.

Slashing Good

W, Rove and Co mantra must be, "Slashing Good" when it comes to the money. Yes, indeed, tax breaks for the already wealthy, corporate welfare for the already rich. Oh, and by the way, hey, lets slash benefits for those marginalized folks who may be poor or don't reach yet up to the middle class. Here's the latest electronic missive from Move on:

Here's a brief description of what's going on: Last spring, Congress passed a budget and tax blueprint calling for three major changes: $35 billion in cuts to vital national services, $70 billion in new tax cuts, largely for the wealthy, and an additional $35 billion tacked onto the deficit. This was bad policy before Katrina, but now it's a catastrophe. Responsible leaders on both sides of the aisle have called for canceling this process, called "budget reconciliation," in light of the cost and increased need created by the hurricane.

But instead of changing course, top Republicans are now using Katrina to argue for $15 billion in additional cuts to the services that the hurricane victims and other vulnerable Americans depend on the most.

Starting this week, the various committees in both houses of Congress will decide whether or not to go ahead with "budget reconciliation" and, if they do go ahead, how bad the cuts will be. If reconciliation bills are submitted, they are hard to amend and impossible to filibuster—so our plan is to weigh in now, before the final decisions are made about what to propose.

Here is a list of some of the programs that are or could be on the chopping block if "budget reconciliation" goes forward:²

• Medicaid and Medicare—the primary health insurance provider for America's poor and elderly.
• Federal Student loans—which make higher education possible for millions of American students.
• Child Nutrition Programs (school lunch and breakfast, summer meals, day care meals)—which provide basic nutrition to underprivileged children in every state.
• Food Stamps—the highly successful federal program that keeps millions of Americans from facing hunger and even starvation.

• Earned Income & Child Tax Credits—vital tax relief for low-income working families.

• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—the federal guarantor of private pension programs, needed more than ever in this era of major bankruptcies.
• State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
• Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and TANF—which provide basic cost of living support to millions of extremely low income and disabled Americans.

• Unemployment insurance.

We're joining forces with the newly created "Emergency Campaign for American Priorities"—the same team that helped save Social Security—to fight back. And whatever happens this round, together we'll make sure the story gets clearly told and our representatives will be held accountable in 2006 and beyond.

The first step is to find out where all of our representatives stand and make sure Congress gets the message by phoning in 25,000 calls by Tuesday.

Call right now, and let us know what you find out.

But, aparently, the pentagon has a blank check to execute their Iraq mission.

Harriet's Not Getting Any Slack

Aparently, the W, Rove and Co are not so sure Miers is going to be as smooth an appointment as Roberts. They are flying in a bunch of Texas judges to vouch for her...don't worry, the taxpayers are not picking up their expenses (but they are meeting with W et al. and we do pay his salary). A group called Progress for America is picking up the tab. Wonder who they are?

Even so, the press folks are finally starting to pick up on the theme that activist judging is in the eye of the beholder. When asked directly as to whether Miers would work to overturn Roe v. Wade, Scotty tossed us the old tired bone about "no litmus tests." But, really, Roe v. Wade is law and if you have someone who is dedicated to defending the constitution and has a "deep commitment" to the law, then you would expect her to follow prior court decisions, no?

Here's a brief snip of the banter back and forth in today's whitewashinghouse press briefing:

Q Why did the President feel it's necessary to invite these former justices, or sitting justices, to the White House to talk about Harriet Miers? Is he trying to change the debate from the religious preoccupation, which was much discussed here last week?

MR. McCLELLAN: Much discussed where last week?

Q Here in this room.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, in this room we've been discussing her qualifications and her experience --

Q Well, you have. Some of us --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and her judicial temperament. So that's what we've always been discussing here at the White House, and that's what we will continue to highlight. These are former justices of the highest court in Texas who --

Q So why did you bring them here?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- know Harriet Miers very well. Harriet Miers is not someone who has sought the limelight, and the American people are just coming to know her. And these are people who are highly respected in the legal community. They know what it takes to serve on our nation's highest court, and they are people who know Harriet Miers well. And as you heard from Chief Justice -- former Chief Justice Hill, he said that she is a brilliant lawyer, and she is someone well-versed on constitutional law. And they also talked about how she is fair and open-minded. And so they are people that know her well and know that she'll make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. She's going through the confirmation process, and we want the American people to get to know Harriet Miers like the President knows her.

Q Isn't it a little unusual to bring them here to the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is for a vacancy on the highest court in our land, and this is an important vacancy. The President has chosen someone who has a distinguished legal career and a strong record of accomplishment. She is someone who is well-respected within the legal community, and well-respected by those who know her well. And that's part of the confirmation process, is talking to the American people about who she is. And she looks forward to continuing to talk to members of the Senate and talk to them about her qualifications and her experience and her judicial philosophy. That's what this should be about, and that's what we're continuing to highlight. Helen, go ahead.

Q The President doesn't want anyone who would legislate from the bench. Can you define that a little bit more? For example, is Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas -- was that legislating? Was Miranda legislating? Was the right to a lawyer legislating from the bench?

MR. McCLELLAN: These are great questions. I'm not the one who's going through the confirmation process. These are questions that will come up in the confirmation hearing process, I imagine. I'm sure the --

Q But I want to know what you are saying. You keep saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure that members of the Senate --

Q -- you can't legislate from the bench. Would all of those rulings been wrong under your --

MR. McCLELLAN: And what we mean by it is that she is someone who will strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, that will not try to make law from the bench. That's what the President means by it. And that means that she is someone who will look at the facts of a case and apply the law, what the law says, and that's what the American people expect in a Supreme Court justice. And that's what the President has always looked for. He's nominated more than 200 people to the bench. And Harriet Miers has been very involved --

Q Is Roe versus Wade the law --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- has been very involved in that process. Now, in terms of cases that could come before the Court, I don't think anyone has an expectation that a future judge should answer a question about a case that could come before that Court. A judge should be fair and open-minded and look at the facts of a case and then apply the law. What you heard from these Supreme Court justices just now was that Harriet Miers is someone who is very fair-minded, and she is someone who will look at the facts and apply the law. And these are all questions about legal issues that she will be answering.

Q But you bring them up. I mean, you --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right. And she looks forward to --

Q -- keep talking about legislating from the bench. Does that mean that nothing changes in 200 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course not, Helen. She will be talking about these issues when she goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions. And she looks forward to answering their questions, and we look forward to the American people seeing her before the Judiciary Committee, where she will have an opportunity to discuss these issues and more.

I love Helen Thomas, but I think I have said that before. The quest to place their brand of "activist" judge in the SCOTUS continues...

Incidentially, PFA, if your curious says that you can donate to them and that won't count toward your legal limit for political contributions to various candidates. But, if you are not careful, it sounds somewhat like you could get yourself into the same kind of trouble that Mr. DeLay has got himself into.

Contributions to PFA are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions to PFA will be used to finance grassroots issue advocacy activities and, therefore, are not deductible as business expenses. Contributions to PFA do not count toward the $95,000 biennial aggregate contribution limit applicable to an individual's contributions to federal candidates, political party committees or PACs.

Does Condi Come Clean?

Crooks and Liars points out that Condi may have diverged from the party line stumbling on the truth. Was it WMD or Terrorism that ignighted the Iraq conflagration? Looks like, indeed, we were lied to in order to align the support for that component of the "war on terror."

"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach..

Bush Hung by His Testicles?

Got this off of Bring it On. Shocking.

Nice Tidbit from Jobs

Found an old copy of Steve Jobs' Stanford Commencement Address from this past spring. Here's an interesting tidbit worth remembering:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Wisdom from the 18th Century

Here's a good idea from Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

Would Mr. Smith suppport the W, Rove and Co were he alive today? Doubt it.

Love to Spare for People Who Work to Keep You Out of Prision

No wonder W has no end of love for the pack of thieves and sundry criminals staffing his whitewashinghouse. They will endear themselves to him for years to come by helping him stay out of prison.

THE most profound issue that will face the Supreme Court in the coming years is not the one animating many of the conservatives angry at Harriet Miers's nomination to the court, abortion. It is presidential power.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush and his lawyers have asserted again and again that the "war on terror" clothes the president as commander in chief with extraordinary, unilateral power - the power, for example, to designate an American citizen as an enemy combatant and imprison him indefinitely, without trial or a real opportunity to demonstrate innocence...

...The Bush administration has often resisted checks on executive branch decisions taken under the heading of war power. In memorandums in 2002 and 2003 on the torture of prisoners, for example, the administration argued that the president could order the use of torture even if it was forbidden by treaty or by Congressional statute...

How are Chief Justice Roberts and Harriet Miers, if she is confirmed, likely to decide on issues of presidential power? Predictions can only be speculative, but there is a possible clue in the case of Chief Justice Roberts. As one member of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Roberts joined an opinion that paid great deference to presidential orders in ruling that the military could resume war crimes trials of terrorism suspects detained at Guantánamo.

Harriet Miers has no public record on these issues. But Professor Yoo, writing in The Washington Post after her nomination, said, "She may be one of the key supporters in the Bush administration of staying the course on legal issues arising from the war on terrorism." He did not explain.

When one becomes a Supreme Court justice, the magnitude of the issues facing the court and the burden of final decision may change previously held views. Justice Robert H. Jackson candidly said so in 1950, when as a justice he disavowed a position he had earlier taken as attorney general.

Claims of presidential power during wartime have particularly large consequences today. In the past, when a president made such claims, the war involved lasted a limited time. The war on terrorism has no definable end. In passing judgment on these issues, the justices of the Supreme Court will be defining American freedom for the future. They should guide by the light of Justice O'Connor's statement last year in the Hamdi case:

"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

I get no love from the W, Rove and Co; only a deep sense that I have been betrayed by my own government. Any one else feeling this way?

Kicking it Up a Knotch on Uncle Karl

Uncle Karl continues to work hard defending himself. Menwhile, I'm wonding how long the president can stand by his man. Some good questions got pat answers at today's briefing from Scotty McMessage McClellan:

Q Scott, the departure of David Safavian from the Office of Management and Budget would seem to indicate that this administration has no tolerance for employees who face indictments. Is that an accurate assumption?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question and I think you're asking that in the context of some of the current events, and I'm not going to even jump in to try to speculate on those matters.

Q Given the time that Karl Rove would need to spend preparing for the testimony he delivered today and the hours that he spent at the courthouse today, how does that kind of absence and that kind of additional assignment for him affect the work that's going on here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are a lot of important priorities that we're focused on here at the White House. We are a nation at war. The President is continuing to lead the effort to win the war on terrorism. We are focused on the priorities of the American people. The White House has a lot of work going on, and we remain focused on that work...blah, blah, blah...


Q And of course there are many people who work here beyond Mr. Rove, but you have always suggested that he is enormously important to this White House and that the President has full confidence in him. And, clearly, Karl Rove would have to spend some time working with his counsel on this matter, and has spent some time away from the White House, and so he would not be available to give the President advice in those moments. Has there been any impact?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has a great team, and the President is the one who is leading our efforts to address these important priorities. And that's where we're focused and that's what we will continue to do, is carry out the work of the American people, because that's what they expect. And while there are other things going on, the White House doesn't have time to let those things distract from the important work at hand. And that's why we remain focused on what the American people want us to do. That's why we remain focused on keeping our economy growing. That's why we remain focused on addressing high energy prices. That's why we remain focused on winning the war on terrorism and helping the Iraqi people build a strong and lasting democracy, so that our troops can come home. And that's why we remain focused on addressing other important priorities that I just mentioned.

Q Has he been released from the grand jury now? We understand he left the building. Is his testimony completed? MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know. You all are covering that.

Q Will he be back here today to work?

MR. McCLELLAN: I will try to keep you posted...

...Q Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jessica.

Q Does the President still have full confidence in Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Jessica, this is asking questions all in the context of an ongoing investigation. And --

Q He's one of the President's chief advisors. Does he have confidence in his ability to perform the job?

MR. McCLELLAN: Karl continues to do his duties as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President, and you're trying to ask a question in the context of an ongoing investigation. The President has made it very clear, we're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation. What we're going to do is support the efforts of the special prosecutor --

Q But, Scott, there's a difference between commenting in a way that would interfere with an investigation and conveying the sense and the clear idea that the President is engaged and concerned --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I've already answered that question, and what I said previously still stands. So I would encourage you to go back and look at what I said previously. But you're asking this question today in the context of some grand jury testimony that's going on. So that's asking a question in the context of an ongoing investigation. The President has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this investigation. It is ongoing. The best way we can help the investigation proceed forward is not to comment on it here from this podium. We'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation has come to a conclusion. And we look forward to that time, once it does.

Q But going to the workings of the White House, you said that there is an extensive White House staff that can take up the issues. Is the suggestion that Karl Rove is less and less engaged and less able to perform his duties?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say that at all, did I? Q What are you saying, then? Is Karl Rove fully engaged, and is this White House -- MR. McCLELLAN: I just said he's continuing to do his duties. Go ahead...

...Q Scott, I just have two quick follows to some questions that were asked earlier. One, are you trying -- are you saying that, CIA leak aside, you can't say that the President has full confidence in Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe you didn't hear what I was saying earlier. I said, what I said previously still stands.

Q What did you say previously? You say that all the time.

MR. McCLELLAN: You can go back and look at it. I'll be glad to share the transcript of when that question came up last time.

Q Either he does or he does not. So he does have full confidence?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already addressed that, Jim.

Q Why can't you repeat it?

Q But why can't -- if you've addressed it, why can't you repeat it for me? Clearly --

MR. McCLELLAN: Why do you have to keep asking a question that I've already answered when --

Q Because I don't know the answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, because you're asking in the context of an ongoing investigation. And it's very easy to go and look at our transcripts and pull that information --

Q That's why I said -- that's why I said, "set the leak aside," just in general are you refusing to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. And I said I stand by what I said previously.

Q Okay, topic two, since you won't answer that question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I did answer that question.

Are you Nervous that the Whitehouse has a Case of the Shakes?

Interstingly, as the whitehouse shakes, the president blinks. Here's an fun line of questioning from today's press briefing:

Q What do you say to reports that the White House is very jittery about everything that's been happening, and that the President is under a great strain?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you've been covering the President today. The President has been having a pretty full day here at the White House. Like I said, we've got a lot of important work on the plate, and we are moving forward on the President's agenda.

Q Where do these reports come from, that they -- do they have any validity?

MR. McCLELLAN: From your colleagues, who write them.

Q Pardon?

MR. McCLELLAN: From your colleagues, who write them.

Q I mean, do they have any basis?

MR. McCLELLAN: What do you mean, "do they have any basis"?

Q That's what I'm asking.

MR. McCLELLAN: Ask those colleagues.

Q No, I'm asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: I told you what we're doing.

Q -- you know what's going on in the White House.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we're focused on the priorities of the American people.

Q Come on, Scott, have you got a case of the shakes, or not? Come on. (Laughter.) Hold up the hands, let's see (Laughter.)

Q That's a very stock answer. Is there concern about all of these things that are happening?

MR. McCLELLAN: "All these things that are happening" ---

Q The grand jury and the --

MR. McCLELLAN: I just mentioned a lot of things that are happening, and that we're getting done for the American people. We've got a lot of big challenges facing this country, and the President is focused on addressing those challenges. That's where he's keeping his focus.

Q Scott, the White House argument up to now on Miers has been, just wait until you get to know her, and you're going to like her, and you're going to see the qualifications that we have laid out, you're going to see that she's going to be a great Supreme Court Justice. And, yet, support continues to hemorrhage for Miers. And so what is the White House prepared --

MR. McCLELLAN: What support are you referring to? There are three former Chief Justices --

Q I don't have to lay out for you what's happening.

Republican Dominos Fall for Indictments

Can't wait for the convictions to start pouring in. I am in dire need of an all cleansing perp walk to restart the American Government (Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect two hundred dollars). If they can screw with Martha, Frist should be an easy fish to fry.

Authorities are looking into Frist's recent sale of shares of hospital operator HCA Inc., co-founded by his family. The sales were completed just days before HCA's stock price fell sharply on a disappointing July 13 profit outlook.

Meanwhile, Uncle Karl is in Hot Water, but the President Doesn't Seem to Mind

More on the Plame situation in today's press briefing. You just can't make this stuff up. It's astounding. Here's Rove and Libby, apearing numerous times in front of a Grand Jury investigation, and yet they still get to make phone calls on the behalf of the W, Rove and Co.

Q I've moved out of barren ground. The Valerie Plame investigation, when the prosecutor asks, no comments about the investigation, he's asking those who have been questioned not to comment on the substance of the question. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking for the White House reaction to the Deputy Chief of Staff, chief political advisor of the President, appearing for the fourth time tomorrow at the grand jury.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, this is relating to an ongoing investigation, and the President has said that no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. I want to get to the bottom of it. We don't know all the facts. We want to know what those facts are. This is an ongoing investigation. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with it. That's exactly what we have been doing. We will be glad to talk about it once it's over, but until that time, what we're going to do is let the special prosecutor complete his work.

Q Can I just ask a quick follow to that? Without talking specifically about the CIA leak case, which I know you don't want to do, can you talk in generality, would the President allow --

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, Jim --

Q Would the President allow a staffer who's been indicted to continue to serve?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct you. I will be glad to talk about it once it's come to a conclusion.

Q But today.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're saying that I don't want to talk about it. I will be glad to once it comes to a conclusion. I don't know all the facts. I want this to come to a successful conclusion.

Q But you've said you're not going to talk about it because it's an ongoing investigation. What I'm just asking is, in general, would the President allow an indicted staffer to remain in the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has addressed these issues, and, again, you're asking a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you're asking in the context of --

Q Can you just remind us of the answers, because I'm --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- someone who you're all reporting may be going back to testify, and I'm just not going to get into that kind of speculation. Okay, now, back to you. I'm sorry, they're going back and forth.

Q You say you can't wait to be able to talk about this. Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q You said that you just can't wait --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said I'll be glad to talk about it once it's done.

Q You said you can't wait to be able to.

MR. McCLELLAN: I said I'll be glad to talk about it, and I look forward to that opportunity, once it's completed.

Let's see if he keeps his word. Doubt it.

Pulling the Wool Over Your Own Eyes

I love Helen Thomas. As a person who has been a part of the whitehouse press corps for a very long time, she knows how to squeeze the current administration's spokesmodel. Looks as though, not only is the W, Rove and Co. trying to pull the wool over our eyes, they are seriously engaged in pulling the wool over their own eyes. Troubling as it is, they really believe that they are right to be in Iraq based on the false connection between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 terrorist bombings. Have a look:

Q What does the President mean by "total victory" -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have "total victory"? What does that mean?

MR. McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --

Q If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.

Q They also know we invaded Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --

Q It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter. Terry.

Q On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.

Q And speak for her, which is odd.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --

Q I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.

I love the following two lines from Helen:

Q It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Q I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war

Sounds like Helen's on solid ground. Still no real answers but obfuscation from the W, Rove and Co. Right now, instead of expecting more from the current administration, I'm expecting less.

Looks Like the American Public Needs a Root Canal

And, it's going to hurt. I had no idea the fun began right at the outset of Scotty McMessage McClellan's briefing today. No sifting needed. Here are some tasty morsels from today's session at the whitewashinghouse. Looks like more obfuscation by defering answers to others:

Q Scott, why did the administration feel it was necessary to coach the soldiers that the President talked to this morning in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I don't know what you're suggesting.

Q Well, they discussed the questions ahead of time. They were told exactly what the President would ask, and they were coached, in terms of who would answer what question, and how they would pass the microphone.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that what our troops were saying was not sincere, or what they said was not their own thoughts?

Q Nothing at all. I'm just asking why it was necessary to coach them.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the event earlier today, the event was set up to highlight an important milestone in Iraq's history, and to give the President an opportunity to, once again, express our appreciation for all that our troops are doing when it comes to defending freedom, and their courage and their sacrifice. And this is a satellite feed, as you are aware, and there are always technological challenges involved when you're talking with troops on a satellite feed like this. And I think that we worked very closely with the Department of Defense to coordinate this event. And I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect.

Q But we asked you specifically this morning if there would be any screening of questions or if they were being told in any way what they should say or do, and you indicated no.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's what the question was earlier today. I think the question earlier today was asking if they could ask whatever they want, and I said, of course, the President was -- and you saw --

Q And I asked if they were pre-screened.

MR. McCLELLAN: You saw earlier today the President was trying to engage in a back-and-forth with the troops. And I think it was very powerful what Lieutenant Murphy was saying at the end of that conversation, when he was talking about what was going on in January, how the American troops and coalition forces were in the lead when it came to providing security for the upcoming election, an election where more than eight million Iraqis showed up and voted. It was a great success. And he talked about how this time, when we had the preparations for the upcoming referendum this Saturday, you have Iraqi forces that are in the lead, and the Iraqi forces are the ones that are doing the planning and preparing and taking the lead to provide for their own security as they get ready to cast their ballots again.

Q But I also asked this morning, were they being told by their commanders what to say or what to do, and you indicated, no. Was there any prescreening of --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any such -- any such activities that were being undertaken. We coordinated closely with the Department of Defense. You can ask if there was any additional things that they did. But we work very closely with them to coordinate these events, and the troops can ask the President whatever they want. They've always been welcome to do that...

...Q All right. Let me get back to the President's encounter with the troops, if I can. You said that the choreography of this was because of a technological challenge involved in the satellite feed. Well, what does that mean?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm just saying that there -- you have delays and things like that when you have a satellite feed, and so, obviously, there's going to be some coordination going on when you're setting up an event like this.

Q So the choreography --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're missing the broader point of what this event was about. And what this event was about was to highlight an important milestone in the history of Iraq: that is the upcoming referendum. The Iraqi people are going to be able to freely express themselves this weekend, once again, as they cast their vote for the constitution that was drafted by their elected leadership. And that was the point of the event. It was also an opportunity for the President to continue expressing the appreciation of the entire nation for the courage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. We're greatly appreciative for all that they're doing. And these were troops that are on the ground in Iraq. They know firsthand what is going on.

And so the President wanted to talk about some important topics that are very important to all Americans, and that is the security situation in Iraq, as well as the upcoming referendum that the Iraqi people will be participating in this weekend. In fact, today, my understanding is that some of the Iraqi citizens that are in hospitals began casting their ballots already.

Q So you're saying this was not a staged conversation for PR purposes?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an event where there's coordination that goes on and we work closely with the Department of Defense. They worked to pull together some troops for the President to visit with and highlight important topics that are going on right now on the ground in Iraq. The President is going to continue speaking out about what we're working to achieve in Iraq and he's going to continue talking about the vital mission that we're working to achieve there. The stakes are high in Iraq. This is right up there at the top of our list of priorities. As the President said in the remarks, his most solemn duty and the most solemn duty of our men and women in uniform, like those he was talking to, is the safety and security of the American people. I just don't know if some are suggesting that what our troops were saying was not their own thoughts, because it clearly was.

Q Now, we all saw the event, so without getting into what the President said and what the troops said, can you just talk specifically to the choreography? Did the soldiers know what questions they would be asking? Did they --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I really can't, because we coordinate this with the Department of Defense, and you might want to direct questions to the Department of Defense, because when we do these events -- we appreciate all the help that they provide -- the Department of Defense takes the lead in terms of pulling some troops together so that we can do events like this.

Q So you, personally, do not know if those soldiers rehearsed their answers before they were on air, live?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, my understanding is that someone from the Department of Defense was talking to them ahead of time. But I don't know -- I was with the President, so --

Candy for People with Already Decaying Teeth

Today's W publicity stunt was so scripted, it hurts to bite. Moreover, it was more candy for an American people with already decaying teeth. The text of Scotty's press gaggle is not up yet, but I'll update if I can when it is. Crooks and Liers is pointing out that, indeed, the briefing from Tikrit was scripted.

Again, what does this administration take us for, fools? Aparently so.

More taxpayer dollars down the toilet, swishing with the bowels of a foundering administration emptied upon us. The shit rains on our heads and they ask us to like it.

Activist Judges and the Double Edged Sword the W, Rove and Co are About to Fall On

Rifling through my blog roll, I found Doc Forbush had a nice post raising interesting questions about the Miers nomination. Here's my response that identifies the double edged sword that the W, Rove and Co are about to commit national seppuku with:

Doc, you raise some interesting questions. The whole litmus test charade is code for "she's a religious zealot, just like me."

Just two questions should help us understand the W: Was it God that you were speaking to that gives you regular guidance? 2) How do you know it's not the Devil instead?

On the Miers situation, the message from Scott McClellan was that religion was not talked about - why? Becuase they already know and understand her position. They don't have to perform any litmus test (which is against the law when appointing judges, btw). Moreover, they were actually trying to pull a fast one on us by suggesting that people "of faith" don't let their faith influence their judgement or impair their ability to make fair legal decisions. But isn't that the point of being "of faith?"

That really is a double edged sword for the W, Rove and Co. Trying to have your cake and eat it too, they suggest that faith is good, but it doesn't affect judgement. So, why would they be on this bender to support "faith based organizations?"

The second edge is that if Miers is going to make decisions based on the law, then the law is that Roe won in Roe V. Wade. That means she should be in the business of supporting that law. Moreover, if she decides otherwise, she will be come that ever so demonized "Activist."

This fight is going to be ugly, and the repubs should be pulling out all the stops to kill her nomination as well as prove that they are distancing themselves from the W, Rove and Co, who are really falling down on the job in a big way.

Here's an Interesting Quote for Intelligentia favoring Intelligent Design

Perhaps proponents of "Intelligent" design are not so intellligent:

Teaching intelligent design is "probably the worst thing I have ever heard of in science education," said Brian Alters, who teaches science education at Harvard University and McGill University in Montreal and was called as an expert witness by parents suing the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district..."

...Evolution does not deny the existence of God," he said. "It's not about God. You can play the game of science and still have your religious beliefs."

Slipping

Whoops: Mr. President, you are slipping in the polls. Does this still make him a good president?

President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Bush's approval rating dipped in the poll below a mid-September ranking of 40 percent. The survey also found only 28 percent of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, NBC reported.

A Person of Faith

I don't know about you, but this little ditty of a phrase really burns my bonnet. Moreover, when the W, Rove and Co. proclaim avidly that a certain SCOTUS nominee is a stout person of faith (of the most conservative sort), but then back peddles to explain that it has no bearing on her appointment I come to two conclusions. 1- They are really outright lying, and 2 - they take us for idiots.

Have a look at the Mier's line of query in today's whitehouse press briefing:

Q Do you think Harriet Miers' religion is being emphasized more by this administration than Chief Justice Roberts' was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Harriet Miers is a person of faith. She recognizes, however, that a person's religion or personal views have no role when it comes to making decisions as a judge. A judge should make decisions based on our constitution and our laws. That's the role of a judge. A judge should look at the facts and apply the law. And that's just like Judge Roberts. He recognized that, as well, that someone's ideology or religion has no role to play when it comes to making decisions on our nation's highest court. That's what the American people expect.

I think when you're talking about our outreach, or reaching out, we do reach out to a lot of people. And Harriet Miers is not someone who has sought the limelight. So there are a lot of Americans who are just beginning to get to know who she is. And we're confident that, as they do, they will see what the President has known for some time now, which is that she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But what we emphasize in the outreach to people we talk to is that she has the qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy that is needed on our nation's highest court. The President appointed her, or nominated her, because she is eminently well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. We should be looking at a nominee's record and that nominee's qualifications and their judicial temperament. She is someone who believes in strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws. And that's why the President selected her...
...Q Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore, her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the factors in his selection?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President makes selections based on potential nominees' qualifications and experience and judicial temperament. That is what he has done in each and every instance when it comes to appointing people to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who have a conservative judicial philosophy, one that is based on interpreting our Constitution and our laws, not making law from the bench. And that's what he bases his decisions on, not someone's religion.

Q So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and then, ultimately --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President makes decisions based on the person's qualifications and experience and judicial temperament.

Q All right. So there was no -- no role at all in the President's decision-making of Harriet Miers' religion?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of who she is. That's part of her background. That's what the President was talking about in his remarks in the Oval Office...

...Q Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't say that it did.

Q So why are you peddling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of her background, Terry; it's part of who she is.

Q But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy.

MR. McCLELLAN: People want to know who she is. And when you're getting to know someone, you want to know what their qualifications and experience are, you want to know what their judicial philosophy is, and you want to know who they are. Faith is very important to Harriet Miers. But she recognizes that faith and that her religion and that her personal views don't have a role to play when it comes to making decisions.

Q It seems that what you're doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right concerned that Harriet Miers isn't conservative enough, by saying, it's okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church...

So, the Whitehouse wants us to think that "being of faith" has no bearing on the decisions a person makes. Do you really think that is something the American people will buy or those on the right wish to hear? Isn't that the whole point of being "of faith?" Zoiks, these people must really think we are stupid.