Sharks Circling Bush. Heh Heh

Gosh, I hope I can find enough pictures of sharks in a feeding frenzy. I'll continue to look for more cuz it looks like I'm gonna need them. [smile]

Yesterday, I was so upset with the lies Bush told in his speech for Veteran's Day that I thought it best to lay off of it for a day or two just to see what would be made of it and I'm so glad I did.

It looks like even the GOP realizes it was a major mistake [Rove seems to be making a lot of those lately] for Bush to take the tactic he did.

More and more Republicans are distancing themselves from him and I'll bet that is scaring the crap out of him. The only thing that will save him is another terrorist attack [God forbid]. So, if it happens, we should really question why it would happen at this time.

I want to post this article from WaPo, if you haven't read it I think you'll enjoy it.

Newsview: Bush Revisits Campaign Playbook

By RON FOURNIERThe Associated PressFriday, November 11, 2005; 10:00 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush seems to be turning the clock back to Election Day 2004, parrying with ex-rival John Kerry and harshly questioning his critics' commitment to U.S. troops.

You can't blame him for being nostalgic for better political times, when most Americans felt he was a strong, honest leader and gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iraq.

That's certainly not the sentiment these days. With his approval ratings plunging, even some Republican leaders are showing signs of abandoning Bush's listing ship.

"Mistakes were made," Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said Friday of the war effort.

When the president visited Pennsylvania to defend his Iraq policies on Friday, Santorum kept his distance, literally and rhetorically. He was 120 miles away, telling reporters the war in Iraq has been "less than optimal" and that "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House.

That's what worries Bush. He and his team launched a coordinated campaign to respond forcefully to accusations that prewar intelligence was manipulated. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican Party chairman Ken

Mehlman were enlisted to defend Bush or to criticize Democrats.

Speaking in Tobyhanna, Pa., Bush accused Democratic critics of hypocrisy because many voted for the war based on the intelligence that they are now questioning. Then he dusted off a strategy from 2004 _ unleashing a carefully worded attack that stops just shy of questioning his critics' patriotism.

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," he said. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

To equate criticism of the president, whether baseless or not, with abandoning U.S. troops is brass-knuckle stuff.

So is accusing the president of defaming U.S. veterans. "I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on a Veterans Day tribute ... ," said Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and former Vietnam War veteran who lost to Bush in 2004.

In his strongest defense yet of his Iraq war policies, Bush quoted Kerry as saying he voted to give the president approval to wage war because weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein would be a grave threat.

During the presidential campaign, Bush loved to quote Kerry stumbling over conflicting statements on Iraq, such as when the Democrat tried to explain his position on a Bush-backed war spending bill. "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," Kerry said at the time.

Still, it's highly unusual for a re-elected president to go after his fallen rival. It shows just how grim things are for Bush. Two crucial pillars of his presidency _ perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism _ have crumbled. An AP-Ipsos poll shows that almost six in 10 Americans say Bush is not honest, and a similar amount disapprove of his handling of the war on terrorism.

While the CIA leak investigation, the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina and high energy costs have all taken their toll, the polling found the Iraq war at the core of Americans' displeasure with the president.

GOP leaders privately say Bush's slump is hurting candidate recruitment for crucial midterm elections next year. Some believe he had at least a minimal negative impact on gubernatorial elections this week in Virginia and New Jersey, both won by Democrats. [no duh]

Republicans like Santorum who are in tough re-election battles are starting to treat Bush like a toxic substance.

In a speech to veterans at the Union League in Philadelphia, Santorum criticized how the war has been presented to Americans, by the White House as well as by the media.

He said Bush made a mistake by calling it a "war on terror," which Santorum equated with calling World War II a "war on Blitzkrieg."

The White House's allies have been eager to see Bush go on the offensive.

"You're not going to get these poll numbers fixed until Americans think the war is going right or that we're doing it for the right reason," said GOP consultant Joe Gaylord. "If he doesn't get these numbers turned around, nothing else will get better."

Gaylord should know. He was then-Rep. Newt Gingrich's consultant in 1994 when angry voters ended the Democrats' 40-year grip on power in the House. Gingrich, R-Ga., became House speaker.

"These are the worst (poll) numbers I've seen for any party since I was looking at the Democratic numbers in 1994," Gaylord said.

NOW, The Bastards Are Willing To Serve Americans

I made a statement in an earlier post that the wins by the Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey were not necessarily big wins for the Democrats. However, I believe now that along with those wins and Bush, the kiss of death, sliding in poll numbers and liar may actually have caused the partisian, worthless Republican bastards in Congress to get off of their lazy, worried about mid-term elections, asses and serve Americans.

How sad these sorry bastards have waited almost 6 years to start doing their jobs. We saw what kind of job they did during the Clinton years. They did a very good job of going after his sex life and now have the gall to whine that nothing got done under the Clinton Administration. Clinton did get a lot done and can you imagine how much would have gotten done if these worthless bastards had've actually cared about the American people and worked with Clinton instead of against him?

Anyhoo, what this rant is leading up to is the fact the House Budget Measure Is Pulled . As Washington staff writers, Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray reported today, Moderates Buck GOP Leadership In Both Chambers.

[clip]

House Republican leaders were forced to abruptly pull their $54 billion budget-cutting bill off the House floor yesterday, amid growing dissension in Republican ranks over spending priorities, taxes, oil exploration and the reach of government.

Now, I call that a win for Americans and considering the Republicans claimed this was one of the most important pieces of legislation in years, you have to wonder what the hell happened to the unity of the GOP they always like to brag about.

Well, what happened is they saw the handwritting on the wall...

[clip]

The twin setbacks added to growing signs that the Republican Party's typically lock-step discipline is cracking under the weight of Bush's plummeting approval ratings, Tuesday's electoral defeats and the increasing discontent of the American electorate. After five years of remarkable unity under Bush's gaze, divisions between Republican moderates and conservatives are threatening to paralyze the party.

"The fractures were always there. The difference was the White House was always able to hold them in line because of perceived power," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. "After Tuesday's election, it's 'Why are we following these guys? They're taking us off the cliff.' "

Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) did not dispute that.

"One of the challenges of any second-term administration is you always lose a certain amount of identification with the Congress, because everybody in the Congress in the first term knows you'll be out there in the next campaign with them," Blunt said in an interview yesterday. "Your motives are always a little more suspect when you don't have to face the voters again."

The House budget vote was supposed to reestablish the Republican commitment to a smaller government that would change the federal approach to Medicaid, food stamps, agriculture subsidies, student loans and a host of other programs.

But moderate Republicans made it clear that was not the way they wanted the party defined.
The GOP leadership had already abandoned a provision in the budget that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a policy goal Bush has embraced since he came to office. But it was not enough to secure the votes of moderates who said remaining policy changes were hitting the nation's most vulnerable citizens just as the party was preparing another round of tax cuts that would benefit the most affluent.

What exactly has the Republican controlled Congress done for the last 6 years? Not much I'd say except everything the corrupt Bush Administration has asked of them, making it politics as usual instead of what's best for America. However, yesterday a bill by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass) was passed [one of the few by a Democrat] which was a good thing for Americans.

[clip]

In an 82 to 9 vote yesterday, the Senate approved an amendment to the defense authorization bill by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to require Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to disclose to Congress the existence of clandestine terrorism detention facilities in foreign countries. The existence of such facilities was disclosed Nov. 2 by The Washington Post, and the Senate vote suggests Republicans are feeling heat from voters on the way Bush is conducting the war on terrorism.

I call that another big win for Americans, hopefully Bush will be next. I hope this trend continues and that the worthless bastards in control of Congress lose their asses in the mid-term elections.

Wake up people!

This Is Why Bush Hires His Cronies

Next Time, Let Captain Kangaroo Run the Senate's Kangaroo Court by David Sirota

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a kangaroo court as one "characterized by dishonesty or incompetence." And that definition clearly describes yesterday's Senate hearings on energy prices.

First and foremost was the Republicans efforts to kiss the pearly white asses of the oil industry executives that they were supposed to be demanding answers from.

As you may recall, these executives have used America's oil industry crisis to rake record profits, while bleeding American consumers dry (Exxon, for instance, pocketed more in profits this quarter than any corporation in U.S. history). Yet, instead of grilling these guys, the GOP did everything they could to make them comfortable. As just one example, Republicans refused to swear in the executives, and actually cleared the room of reporters so that there weren't any damning photos of them a la the famous hearings with tobacco industry execs.

But what really made this a kangaroo court was the testimony of Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Majoras. As the New York Times reported, " she opposed a federal price-gouging law because it might lead to price caps." Hmm...so let us get this straight - the industry is price gouging Americans all over the country, but what we really should be afraid of is a law barring that price gouging because it may actually force companies to bring down their prices?

Apparently, yes, that was Majoras's argument. But then, that's not surprising when you consider what position Majoras was really representing. Majoras, you may recall, was appointed by President Bush to head the FTC after serving as a corporate lawyer for ChevronTexaco. Her appointment was clearly a huge gift to the oil industry by the Bush administration - and now the gift is reaping rewards. Thus, at the hearing yesterday, you had Republicans coddling their oil executives who underwrite their campaigns, and then you had one of the oil executives' cronies dressed up as a government regulator ratifying the executives' position that nothing is really wrong with continuing to bilk Americans with energy profiteering.

Why don't we just have Captain Kangaroo preside over the next "hearing," shall we? Because let's be honest-he'd be a more serious inquisiter than these clowns running the Senate.

I'm With Senator Kennedy

November 10, 2005

KENNEDY STATEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS TO EXAGGERATE THREATS IN THEIR MARCH TO WAR AS CHALABI, THE PENTAGON'S FAVORITE IRAQI DISSIDENT, VISITS D.C., KENNEDY REMINDS SENATE OF CHALABI'S OWN WORDS

Earlier this week, several of our Republican colleagues came to the Senate floor and attempted to blame individual Democratic Senators for their errors in judgment about the war in Iraq.

It was little more than a devious attempt to obscure the facts and take the focus off the real reason we went to war in Iraq. 150,000 American troops are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq because the Bush Administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America never should have fought.

As we know all too well, Iraq was not an imminent threat. It had no nuclear weapons. It had no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

But the President wrongly and repeatedly insisted that it was too dangerous to ignore the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, and his ties to Al Qaeda.

In his march to war, President Bush exaggerated the threat to the American people. It was not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda justified immediate war.

Administration officials suggested the threat from Iraq was imminent, and went to great lengths to convince the American people that it was.

At a roundtable discussion with European journalists last month, Secretary Rumsfeld deviously insisted: "I never said imminent threat."

In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2002, "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent -- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

In May 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether we went to war "because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the United States." Fleischer responded, "Absolutely."

What else could National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have been suggesting, other than an imminent threat -- an extremely imminent threat -- when she said on September 8, 2002, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

President Bush himself may not have used the word "imminent", but he carefully chose strong and loaded words about the nature of the threat -- words that the intelligence community never used -- to persuade and prepare the nation to go to war against Iraq.

In the Rose Garden on October 2, 2002, as Congress was preparing to vote on authorizing the war, the President said the Iraqi regime "is a threat of unique urgency."

In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, President Bush Specifically invoked the danger of nuclear devastation: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

At an appearance in New Mexico on October 28, 2002, after Congress had voted to authorize war, and a week before the election, President Bush said Iraq is a "real and dangerous threat."

At a NATO summit on November 20, 2002, President Bush said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat."

In Fort Hood, Texas on January 3, 2003, President Bush called the Iraqi regime a "grave threat."

Nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud. Unique and urgent threat. Real and dangerous threat.

Grave threat. These words were the Administration's rallying cry for war. But they were not the words of the intelligence community, which never suggested that the threat from Saddam was imminent, or immediate, or urgent.

It was Vice President Cheney who first laid out the trumped up argument for war with Iraq to an unsuspecting public. In a speech on August 26, 2002, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he asserted: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." As we now know, the intelligence community was far from certain. Yet the Vice President had been convinced.

On September 8, 2002, he was even more emphatic about Saddam. He said, "[We] do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." The intelligence community was deeply divided about the aluminum tubes, but Vice President Cheney was absolutely certain.

One month later, on the eve of the watershed vote by Congress to authorize the war, President Bush said it even more vividly. He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists."

In fact, as we now know, the intelligence community was far from convinced of any such threat.

The Administration attempted to conceal that fact by classifying the information and the dissents within the intelligence community until after the war, even while making dramatic and excessive public statements about the immediacy of the danger.

In October 2002, the intelligence agencies jointly issued a National Intelligence Estimate stating that "most agencies" believed that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program after inspectors left in 1998, and that, if left unchecked, Iraq "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
The State Department's intelligence bureau, however, said the "available evidence" was inadequate to support that judgment. It refused to predict when "Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon."

About the claims of purchases of nuclear material from Africa, the State Department's intelligence bureau said that claims of Iraq seeking to purchase nuclear material from Africa were "highly dubious." The CIA sent two memorandums to the White House stressing strong doubts about those claims.

But the following January, in 2003, the President included the claims about Africa in his State of the Union Address, and conspicuously cited the British government as the source of that intelligence.

Information about nuclear weapons was not the only intelligence distorted by the Administration. On the question of whether Iraq was pursuing a chemical weapons program, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded in September 2002 that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

That same month, however, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam has chemical weapons stockpiles.

He said, "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction," that Saddam "has amassed large clandestine stocks of chemical weapons." He said that "he has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons," and that Iraq has "active chemical, biological and nuclear programs." He was wrong on all counts.

Yet the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate actually quantified the size of the stockpiles, stating that "although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of CW agents -- much of it added in the last year." In his address to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went further, calling the 100 to 500 metric ton stockpile a "conservative estimate."

Secretary Rumsfeld made an even more explicit assertion in his interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on March 30, 2003. When asked about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

The Administration's case for war based on the linkage between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was just as misguided.

Significantly here as well, the Intelligence Estimate did not find a cooperative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On the contrary, it stated only that such a relationship might develop in the future if Saddam was "sufficiently desperate" -- in other words, if America went to war. But the estimate placed "low confidence" that, even in desperation, Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda.

A year before the war began, senior Al Qaeda leaders themselves had rejected a link with Saddam. The New York Times reported last June that a top Al Qaeda planner and recruiter captured in March 2002 told his questioners last year that "the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Al Qaeda leaders, but Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals." According to the Times, an Al Qaeda chief of operations had also told interrogators that it did not work with Saddam.

Mel Goodman, a CIA analyst for 20 years, put it bluntly: "Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were enemies. Bin Laden considered and said that Saddam was the socialist infidel. These were very different kinds of individuals competing for power in their own way and Saddam Hussein made very sure that Al Qaeda couldn't function in Iraq."

In February 2003, investigators at the FBI told the New York Times they were baffled by the Administration's insistence on a solid link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One investigator said: "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there."

But President Bush was not deterred. He was relentless in playing to America's fears after the devastating tragedy of 9/11. He drew a clear link -- and drew it repeatedly -- between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

On September 25, 2002, at the White House, President Bush flatly declared: "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, President Bush said, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda," and that he could provide "lethal viruses" to a "shadowy terrorist network."

Two weeks later, in his Saturday radio address to the nation, a month before the war began, President Bush described the ties in detail, saying, "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks."

He said: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. An Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

Who gave the President this information? The NIE? Scooter Libby? Chalabi?

In fact, there was no operational link and no clear and persuasive pattern of ties between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. A 9/11 Commission Staff Statement in June of 2004, put it plainly: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The 9/11 Commission Report stated clearly that there was no "operational" connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That fact should have been abundantly clear to the President. Iraq and Al Qaeda had diametrically opposing views of the world.

The Pentagon's favorite Iraqi dissident, Ahmed Chalabi, is actually proud of what happened. "We are heroes in error," Chalabi said in February 2004. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush Administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords, if he wants."

What was said before does matter. The President's words matter. The Vice President's words matter. So do those of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and other high officials in the Administration. And they did not square with the facts.

The Intelligence Committee agreed to investigate the clear discrepancies, and it's important that they get to the bottom of this, and find out how and why President Bush took America to war in Iraq. Americans are dying. Already more than 2000 have been killed, and more than 15,000 have been wounded.

The American people deserve the truth. It's time for the President to stop passing the buck and for him to be held accountable.

Reporters Giving Poor Scottie Hell

November 8, 2005 Press Briefing

Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.

Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --

Q He did not ask for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.

Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --

Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --

Q I'm asking about exemptions.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --

Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --

MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --

Q He didn't ask for an exemption --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --

Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --

Q You're not answering -- yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.

Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.

Q If you could answer in a straight way.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.

Q -- yes or no --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.

Q Did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.

Q Is that the answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.

Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.

Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.

Q What are we asking for?

Q Would you characterize what we're asking for? MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we -- Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.

Q I'm asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --

Q What does that mean --

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.

Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.

Q So they're all killers --

Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.

Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.

Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --

Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --

Q This would be the exemption, in other words.

MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.

Q We simply are asking a question.

Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --

Q -- no, it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.

Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.

Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.

Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --

MR. McCLELLAN: Jessica, go ahead.

Well, Isn't This Special...

What does the bird flu have to do with Viagra?

More than the big drug companies want you to know.

Americans Deserve Protection from a Pandemic Flu Outbreak
Congress needs to act to protect Americans from the dangers of a pandemic flu outbreak – and the best way to protect Americans from the flu is to produce safe vaccines.

But the Bush Administration and Members of Congress are using fear of a flu outbreak as an excuse to slip in huge giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry. Proposals being considered would limit the ability of individuals to hold drug companies accountable if they give people unhealthy or deadly vaccines or drugs, even if they commit gross negligence.
Immunity for Viagra?

And Viagra? The bill doesn’t just give immunity to a flu vaccine. The legislation would allow the government to add drugs made by their favorite corporations to a list of those that would be protected. You name it, they could add it to the list.

Tell Congress, no special protections for the pharmaceutical industry!

Even if it’s not related at all, the drugmaker could receive immunity anyway, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services says so. One person would be given the power to give immunity from all liability to any drug company for any drug!

What Does This Mean for You?

What does that mean for ordinary Americans? It means no remedy if you or your loved ones are injured or killed by a bad dose of vaccine -- or by any dangerous drug that’s on the immunity list!

For instance, if a drug maker marketed a drug or vaccine that was approved for adults, but caused serious medical problems and even death when used by children, as was the case with heartburn medicine Propulsid, the parents of an injured child would have no way to hold the drug maker accountable.

If a drug company used a dangerous ingredient in over-the-counter cold medicine that gave hundreds of people strokes, as was the case with the drug PPA, which was in Triaminic and Tavist products until 2000, people who were harmed could not seek compensation.

And if a contaminated batch of an anti-viral treatment caused massive illness and even death, families would be unable to get any remedy.

Tell Congress, no special protections for the pharmaceutical industry!

Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where drug companies placed dangerous drugs on the market, putting their bottom line before the health and safety of the public.
The Case of Vioxx

In the most recent example, the vaccine manufacturer Merck continued to market its pain relief drug Vioxx, even as internal company documents showed that corporate officials were aware of the serious problems with the drug. Before Merck pulled Vioxx from the market, as many as 55,000 Americans were killed by heart attacks and strokes caused by the drug, according to congressional testimony by David Graham a scientist with the Food and Drug Administration.

Tell Congress to put our families' health and safety before pharmaceutical company profits. If they are really interested in protecting the public's safety, they will stand up for safe vaccines, not special protections for the pharmaceutical industry.

Time For A Feeding Frenzy

That's right, do you smell that blood? It would appear, according to rawstory, Lott (R-MS) told CNN's Ed Henry a GOP Senator is the one who leaked the information to the Washington Post about the secret US prisons that are scattered hither and yon around the world.

Frist and Hastert has called on the Senate and House intelligence committees to investigate this leak. hehe [cough, ahem]

Dammit, Lott is tired of being left out of the loop so he's out for blood. Well, I'll bet that's just going to show Frist and Hastert for not letting him stand in front of the cameras with them.

To be exact, this is what old Trent boy told CNN:

"Trent Lott stunned reporters by declaring that this subject was actually discussed at a Senate Republican luncheon, Republican senators only, last Tuesday the day before the story ran in the Washington Post. Lott noted that Vice President Cheney was also in the room for that discussion and Lott said point blank "a lot of it came out of that room last Tuesday, pointing to the room where the lunch was held in the capitol." He added of senators "we can't keep our mouths shut." He added about the vice president, "He was up here last wek and talked up here in that room right there in a roomful of nothing but senators and every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper." He said he believes when all is said and done it may wind up as an ethics investigation of a Republican senator, maybe a Republican staffer as well. Senator Frist's office not commenting on this development. The Washington Post not commenting either."

My, my, I'm thinking someone is going to be in deep doo doo for this little bit of retaliation

Big Win For Democrats? Mebbe, Mebbe Not.

As I'm sure by now most Liberal Democrats are aware that, D-Kaine of Virginia and D-Corine of New Jersey won Governorships even though they were up against the typical nasty campaign by the Republicans.

Most Democrats are calling this a big win for Democrats but I'm going to be very cautious about it and say, mebbe. Sadly the Democrats lost in New York by re-electing Bloomberg. [Wake up people!]

It's a step in the right direction BUT I will only consider the Democrats as winning big when they start taking Senate seats and Governorships away from more than just two Republicans. If we expect to save this country from the corrupt Republican Bush Administration then we have got to start electing more Democrats to office.

Put the Government back into the hands of Americans and vote...Democrat! And please, do not listen to the Republican biased media or the sleaze and slander machine of Rove. They lie whether it sounds good or bad. Everything they say and do is to psych the Democratic voters out so they will either become complacent or just give up hope.

Use your heads people, think for yourselves and wake the hell up!

Okay, Which Hand Is It?

On one hand we have Mr. Bush claiming that "We do not torture," then on the other hand we have the most powerful Vice President in American history fighting tooth and nail to make sure torture is part of the war on terror.

So, what is it, guys? We torture or we don't, Americans want and need to know.

Once again the question emerges, who is really running this administration?