I Called This One

On January 11th Alternet ran an article titled, 2006: The Year Of Oil Collapse by James Howard Kunstler, Kunstler.com. For a small taste of what the article is about...

Editor's note: This is one of three perspectives AlterNet has assembled on the prospect of peak oil and its implications for modern society and the global economy. The other two are from World Watch: Christopher Flavin writes that while we can't know exactly when oil production will start declining, we must focus on alternatives to petroleum now; and Robert K. Kaufman describes the role the market and government should play in helping to make the transition from a petroleum-dependent society.

This is my response to the article...

What these experts say may be true... Posted by: Libbie on Jan 11, 2006 8:30 AM

and because of what happened with the oil "shortages" in the 70's, we should have already developed alternative energy sources. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out eventually the oil will run out.

Now, call me skeptical but after living through the 70's oil shortages and finding out it was OPEC behind it, punishing America for their relationship with Israel, I can't help but think this is the underlying problem again. Only this time we are going to be punished for Bushes little war against the Axis of Evil who just happens to own most of the oil in the world. Of course the oil company in the White House will make tons of money (when is enough enough?) if there really is an oil shortage.

Maybe this is what it will take for the gluttonous oil consumers to wake up and demand the developement of alternative energy sources and tell the White House oil company and OPEC to kiss our ass.We shouldn't wait until we run out of oil to do something about it.

Oh and as far as that housing bubble blah blah blah. I have friends in construction and I'm here to tell you that the housing bubble popped the day Bush was given the White House the first time.

Libby of Liberal Woman

Bear with me for a moment while make my point.

How many of you noticed the big tumble the stock market took yesterday? In this article from MSNBC...

Dow gives back gains for year as stocks tumble

Closely-watched market index sees biggest one-day fall since March 2003

[clip]

At Friday’s close the Dow was down 213.32 points, or 1.96 percent, giving back all of the 325 points it had gained this year.

[clip]

The situation in Iran and new threats of terrorist attacks on the United States pushed the energy market sharply higher Friday. A barrel of light crude surged $1.29 to settle at $68.48 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where natural gas also bounced off recent lows to add 37.5 cents to $9.28 per 1,000 cubic feet.

[clip]

Now, once again let me state, it doen't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Iran [part of the "axis of evil"] is going to hurt America and "the coalition" for making threats against them and the possibility of UN sanctions by cutting the flow of oil to them.

Oil prices surge back above $68 a barrel

Oil prices zoomed to a four-and-a-half month high above $68 a barrel Friday, rallying on supply fears tied to Iran’s tense diplomatic standoff with the West over its nuclear ambitions. • FULL STORY

Of course there are other factors too but mark my words, the underlying problem in the stock market drop and rising oil prices is due to our little petty tyrant's threats against Iran. After Bush's occupation of Iraq and threats against the "axis of evil," it only makes sense that Iran would arm themselve with nuclear weapons.

I don't believe Bush will be able to walk in and ocuppy Iran as easily as he did Iraq. They have not had years of UN sanctions against them, weakening their oil production and economy the way Iraq's was. I believe Bush will make a terrible mistake if he underestimates Iran.

As an added note, in my comment to Alternet's article you'll notice I also made a statement about the housing bubble and construction. Well...

Home construction falls sharply in December
Data signals that the nation’s long housing boom could be cooling off

The housing boom has been stone cold since Bush was given office. I'm not saying big homes aren't being built but that it's the rich elite SUV Neocons who get all the tax breaks that is building them, not us poor little guys who'd love to have a new home but can't take the risk of building one.

IMPEACH

Uh Oh, Chris Matthews Went Too Far This Time

I personally never watch Chris Matthews of Hardball. He is bordering on the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly and I just don't have the stomach to listen to their lies and spin about Liberals.

The blogosphere is buzzing because it seems Chris Matthew's said..."Osama bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore." [shame on you Chrissy, you really stepped in it this time.]

Here's what it's all about...

Daou Report

by Peter Daou

UPDATE: John Kerry blogs on Daily Kos, Chris Matthews offers a half-hearted acknowledgement that he was "misunderstood." Nearly 20,000 people visit An Open Letter to Chris Matthews.

DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left.

And last I checked, Michael Moore didn't massacre thousands of innocent Americans. (The indispensable Crooks and Liars has the clip) And here's John Kerry's blistering statement on the Hardball scandal and Bin Laden's reappearance:"You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America." -- John Kerry

MATTHEWS SCANDAL BLOG ROUNDUP

+++ Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Chris Matthews" +++ Huffington Post: "Equating a prominent conservative activist to a murderous terrorist would bring the wrath of the rightwing machine on Matthews' head. But in today's political environment, Dems and liberals are fair game, either through insidious pro-Bush narratives like 'Bush is firm' and 'Dems are muddled,' or through blatant and vile comments like the one Matthews so glibly foisted on us." +++ Digby (who offers readers contact information to MSNBC): "This is ridiculous. This man is either working overtime to kiss right wing ass for some reason or he's been paid off to do full-on GOP character assassination. This is exactly what the Republicans did to Tom Daschle and Max Cleland." +++ Matt Stoller: "It is outrageous that Chris Matthews can slander the left, and take the threat of terrorism so lightly. I'd like to see a Democrat step up to the mike on this one." +++ Aravosis: "Pitiful. And terribly embarrassing for NBC and all of its namesakes." +++ More from Jane, Daily Kos, Seeing the Forest, The Green Knight, and The Left Coaster +++ Remember: This is not just about Chris Matthews or Michael Moore or Osama Bin Laden, it's about the willingness of a prominent media figure to slander an opponent of the war. +++

UPDATE: Markos adds: "The blowhards like Chris Matthews are orgasmic in their denunciations of liberals these days in the wake of the latest Osama Bin Laden tape. But let's remember -- it's not liberal who are in power. It's been George Bush and his neocon pals. It is THEY who have failed to capture or kill Bin Laden. It is they who have made our country less safe, and created a world in which terrorist attacks have increased. It is they who are making a mess out of the war in Iraq, failing to provide our troops with basic necessities like body and vehicle armor."

And don't forget to read An Open Letter to Chris Matthews

When Will The MSM Stop Giving Bush A Free Ride?

I remember during the Clinton Presidency the MSM wouldn't let Clinton take a piss without reporting about it, yet time after time they under report any scandals concerning Bush if they report on him at all. The White House Press corp lets Scott McClellan lie to them time after time and hardly if ever call him on it.

What's so bad is that when the MSM does report about the scandals in the Bush White House they make claims the Democrats are involved and it's their problems. [what liars] I believe this pretty much shows which party controls the media in this country.

It's time we held the Media's feet to the fire and let them know we expect them to report both sides to the story and for them to do some damn research before they spout nothing but lies.

How long will the media let Bush hide the Abramoff meetings?
by Joe in DC - 1/18/2006 12:36:00 PM

Atrios makes a great point, as usual:

Look, back during the Clinton administration this kind of thing would've dominated cable news every night. Howell Raines would've been writing thunderous editorials demanding that we knew every detail of Abramoff's White House connections. Tweety would be cranking out spittle at a record rate, screeching about the "culture of corruption" in the White House. Nightline would've put up a little "X days since White House refused to disclose information about Abramoff contacts with the president" graphic on its show.

Everyone who attended a coffee at the White House during the Clinton Administration had their name printed in the Washington Post and New York Times. The press DEMANDED that information. But, we know the Bush White House repeatedly welcomed Jack Abramoff -- who is both a major GOP fundraiser (a Bush Pioneer, no less) and a convicted felon in part because of his GOP-related shenanigans -- yet, the Bush White House doesn't have to provide details. Is the traditional media really that weak? If they ask too many questions or push too hard, maybe they won't get a Presidential nickname...that would really suck for them.

There's a history to Scotty and the crew stonewalling about their more notorious allies. Remember, they never fully explained how that man-whore Jeff Gannon managed all that repeat business at the White House either.

Did Clinton Violate FISA?

It has been brought to our attention the Bush Administration has been making the claim that Clinton's use of physical searches also violated FISA. Is this true or is it another lie put out by the Bush Administration?

Let's see...

Scott McClellan at the January 17th Press Breifing...

Q You kept saying "lawful." It's true the President -- there is a law that permits the President to get a warrant and wiretap. But he has not been doing that; he's been breaking the law. Al Gore said he broke the law. The ACLU is filing a suit. Why does he break the law? I mean, he has the means and the tools to do what --

MR. McCLELLAN: I reject that wholeheartedly, Helen. The legal justification has been spelled out by the Department of Justice.

In terms of Al Gore's comments, I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds. It was the Clinton administration that used warrantless physical searches. An example is what they did in the case of Aldrich Ames. And it was the Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton administration that testified before Congress and said, "First, the Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the President has inherent authority" -- inherent authority -- "to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." This is testimony, public testimony before the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

I would also point out that a former associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration said that every President since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the Act's terms -- under President Clinton -- and he pointed to the Deputy Attorney General's comments that I just referenced. So --

January 16th on CNN's Larry King Live, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales claimed...

KING: General, Al Gore said today that President Bush repeatedly and persistently broke the law with the NSA domestic spying program and he wants a special counsel named to investigate. What are your thoughts?

ALBERT GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I didn't see the speech of the former vice president. What I can say is that this program from its inception has been carefully reviewed by lawyers throughout the administration, people who are experienced in this area of the law, experienced regarding this technology and we believe the president does have legal authorities to authorize this program.

I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

I can also say that it's my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.

These are in fact untrue statements by both, Scottie and Albert.

MediaMatters has provided this information as proof that Clinton did not violate FISA...

At the time of the Ames investigation, FISA did require warrants for wiretaps -- as it does now -- and there is ample evidence that the Clinton administration complied with those requirements. In a 2002 speech, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who previously served on the FISA Court, noted the "key role" the court played in that case to "authorize physical entries to plant eavesdropping devices":

LAMBERTH: I'm sure all of you recall the Aldrich Ames case, the CIA officer who was a Russian spy, and the key role the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court played in his case. The attorney general had also authorized physical searches of Ames's home, not pursuant to court order, that turned out to be very productive. Had Ames gone to trial, that would have been a hotly litigated issue. The president and the Congress wisely reacted by amending the statute to now require that physical searches for national security reasons also be authorized by the court.

The court had authority all along to authorize physical entries to plant eavesdropping devices, but the court had never authorized physical searches for information.

The Clinton administration's compliance with the FISA requirements regarding electronic surveillance was further substantiated by Mark M. Richard, a former deputy assistant attorney general. According to a Department of Justice (DOJ) review -- conducted by then-assistant U.S. attorney Randy I. Bellows -- of the Los Alamos National Laboratory investigation, Richard established in 1999 that, during the Ames investigation, "the Attorney General was asked to sign as many as nine certifications to the FISA Court in support of applications for FISA surveillance."

During his conversation with Toensing, Blitzer asked twice if the DOJ went to the FISA court after the fact, a reference to FISA's "emergency" provision, which allows the government to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after starting some surveillance or searches. But his question missed the central falsehood in Toensing's argument. FISA did not apply to physical searches at the time of the Ames investigation or the Gorelick testimony, a point that Blitzer did not raise despite Toobin's having made it minutes before. Prior to Toensing's apparently unexpected commentary on The Situation Room, Toobin had clearly affirmed that "physical searches were not covered by the FISA law" at the time of Gorelick's 1994 testimony and that the Clinton administration never "went ahead and wiretapped American citizens without informing or using the FISA court."

From the December 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room (4 p.m. ET hour):

BLITZER: Here's the point that Senator [John] Cornyn [R-TX] and many other Republican supporters of the administration make in Gorelick's own words, when she said that the president has, quote, "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." That's the direct quote that she made. And what they argue, the Republicans, Senator Cornyn included, is physical searches are no different, in effect are the same as wiretapping.

TOOBIN: Well the statement, as I understand it, and here we're getting into some real details. In 1994, when Jamie Gorelick made that statement, physical searches were not covered by the FISA law. And that was changed in 1995. But I think the general point you're making is right.

Jamie Gorelick at least appeared to say there were certain inherent powers in the presidency that went beyond what FISA provided for. The Clinton administration always asserted they never went beyond those powers, but there does appear to be a statement of -- claiming inherent authority. The Bush administration now appears both to be claiming that authority and perhaps using it in this very controversial program that we've been talking about since last week.

BLITZER: But there's no evidence that the Clinton administration actually went ahead and wiretapped American citizens without informing or using the FISA court?

TOOBIN: Absolutely not. In fact, what the Clinton administration has said and did was that they followed the FISA law, and the FISA law prohibited wiretaps of Americans without a court order.

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

On a vote of 6-3 the Supreme Court upheld the physician-assisted suicide law, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Can anyone guess who one of the 3 dissenting votes was from? That's right, Bush yes man, John Roberts. Let it not be said he doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on.

This article from WaPo and it is certainly worth a read.

A Wise Republican

Every now and then a Republican surprises us and is honest enough to admit that maybe a Republican President has broken the law and should be held accountable. The Republican I speak of is Senator Arlen Specter.

Sunday, Senator Specter told George Stephanopoulos that "Bush in theory could face impeachment charges if found to have violated the law by authorizing the program [the illegal spying of Americans without a court order from FISA], but he did not endorse that approach and had heard no serious talk of it."

He also said "we're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely. We're going to explore it in depth," Specter said on ABC television's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

The judiciary committee has scheduled hearings on the issue and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said he will testify on the administration's legal justification. The operation includes eavesdropping on U.S. phone calls and reading e-mails. The hearings are expected next month.

I personally will be watching these hearings very closely, how about you?