"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, October 08, 2005

She also crucified Jesus, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, and is D.B. Cooper
Posted by Jill | 9:30 PM

Look, I'm no great fan of Hillary Clinton. Far from being the rabid liberal the freepi make her out to be, she's actually just another Bob Shrum/Al From DLC sellout. I cannot forgive her for voting for this war, and if she's the nominee, I may very well stay home for the first time in my life.

That said, said freepi have come up with the REAL leaker in the Valerie Plame case.

Yes, it's Hillary, that one-woman Zionist Occupation Government, the Supreme Power Here on Earth.

Diarist "Glic" at Kos explains:

As I was, you were probably counting the delicious indictments poised to be handed out by Fitz. Rove, Libby, Bolton, Hadley, Rice[!],to name a few, with a dash of unindicted co-conspirators given to Dick and George. IDIOTS!

I figured who in this world knows the mind of devious republicans better than the devious republicans over in Freeperville.[no link, don't give them the hits] Could they be seeing something we're not? Something that is so far-fetched it's logical? Something so unconnected it's obvious? The answer is yes. And guess who they believe it goes back to? Were you thinking Hillary? You weren't? Well, they are. And the "logic" involved will blow your mind.


Which means - it was NOT LIBBY who gave her the information - IT WAS PROBABLY HILLARY. I believe that because Valerie Pflame Wilson and her husband were very close friends of Hillary (giving Hillary the opportunity to know that type of information - and because I believe Pflame was a stool pigeon for the Clintons - especially after Bush took office). The Wilsons were known for their fund raisers for the Clintons.

I also believe it was Hillary who prompted Valerie to suggest her husband for the trip to Niger.

Why do I think Hillary would suggest that ..?? Because of the Wilson's relationship to the Clintons, and the fact that Bubba was all over Europe trying to get other countries to VOTE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES .. and Wilson was the perfect stooge to pretend that when he went to Niger and FOUND NOTHING - thereby MAKING BUSH OUT TO BE A LIAR - ALONG WITH BLAIR.


Do you not feel like a complete simpleton after reading such a masterful and logical conclusion? What about the very real possibilty that Patrick Fitzgerald might be covering for Hillary!

So why would Fitzgerald go along with NOT questioning Miller about her other (real) sources, even if or especially if, it WAS Hillary? Is he stupid enough to try to cover for Hillary? Is he stupid enough to think it wouldn't come out eventually, thanks to inquiring minds like the Pajamadeen Freepers?


Thanks, indeed! Yes, it will "all come out", like sunflower seeds through a pigeon

By their logic, there is also someone else who is as guilty as the day is long. Did the name Joe Wilson pop into your mind? No? It should have because they have it all figured it. In fact, it's quite "simple."


It's so simple: Joe Wilson publishes his NYT op-ed, everybody in Washington says "Who the hell is this guy?" Anybody who has ever talked 5 minutes with Wilson knows he'll blab about his wife to anybody who will listen. The rumor spread throughout Washington and these reporters wanted Libby and Rove to "confirm" it even though the reporters themselves knew that Plame drove to Langley every day.



Do the freepi sit up nights coming up with this stuff? If Hillary were so Goddamned all-powerful and all-knowing, how come Bill was impeached? Huh?
Bookmark and Share

Hackocracy
Posted by Jill | 2:31 PM

Lovely word, isn't it? I can't wait till this one finds its way into the dictionary, defined as "the U.S. government under the 43rd President of the United States.

MoDo quotes TNR coining the word in her spot-on column in the New York Times today (which I had to read online, as my deliverer decided to lob the paper into the gutter this morning here in NJ where we're having torrential rain. Suffice it to say that I have the various sections hanging over kitchen chairs with fans blowing on them, trying to make them dry enough to read):

Conservatives may consider Harriet Miers the last straw.

But what will Harriet Miers consider the last straw with conservatives?

Maybe it will be Bork Borking her.
The old Supreme Court nominee reject rejected the new Supreme Court nominee, calling her "a disaster on every level" and "a slap in the face" to conservatives. Robert Bork complained to Tucker Carlson on MSNBC last night that Ms. Miers had "no experience with constitutional law whatever," that it was wrong for W. to choose a justice simply to have a woman's perspective and that conservative reaction veered between "disapproval and outrage."

WHAM! BLAM! POW!

Way to crack the gal right across the kisser, when she's already on the ropes from so much conservative wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[snip]

Conservatives are shocked to discover that President Bush has been stuffing his administration with cronies and mediocrities in important places? If Ms. Miers were a sworn foe of Roe v. Wade and an ardent advocate of originalism in constitutional jurisprudence, would the same conservatives be so sick about her qualifications? Clarence Thomas, after all, was anything but a leading light of American jurisprudence.

The New Republic this week chooses the biggest 15 hacks in the Bush administration, noting that "no administration has etched the principles of hackocracy into its governing philosophy as deeply as this one." Ms. Miers wins at No. 1.

W.'s case for her elevation is their closeness, because she is, as Alexander Hamilton put it, one of the "obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

W. is so loath to leave his little bubble - where caretakers tell him how brilliant and bold he is - that he keeps selecting the people in charge of the selection committees. It's just so much easier to choose a sycophant who's already in the room than to create one from scratch.

He used to disdain pointy-headed liberals from Yale, but now he's angry at pointy-headed conservatives demanding some sort of genius for the Supreme Court, rather than a den mother who did all of W.'s legal wet work and who prefers John Grisham to Leo Strauss.

While the Bushies have been trying to reassure the right that W. knows Harry's heart, that she's a good Christian church lady who will vote in a way that will please them, Harry is probably working herself up to a good grudge against all those meanies who are savaging her as a lightweight apple polisher. Imagine! After she rechristened herself midlife as born again and Republican for them.

Even if she was going to be a loyal conservative jurist before, why should she be now, after all the loathsome things they've said?

The old maxim goes that a neoconservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality. But if you're a conservative mugged by conservatives, neo and paleo, it may have the opposite effect and turn you into ... David Souter!!!!


We should be so lucky. What worries me about this appointment is that while I have no doubt that Miers is a vile corporatist, no moderate, and a foe of self-determination of health care, if the conservatives succeed in getting Bush to cave on this appointment, the next gargoyle he nominates will be even worse.
Bookmark and Share

Pam in Freeperville
Posted by Jill | 9:28 AM

The intrepid Pam (who has just been added, far too late, to our blogroll) visits the Freepi, so you don't have to.

SEE! The freepi's heads exploding as they try to justify their Chosen Messiah!

HEAR! The twisted logic they use to try to convince themselves that their conservative Valhalla is still possible!

SMELL! The sweat as they realize that their chosen Messiah is a false one!

WITNESS! Live freepi jumping through hoops!
Bookmark and Share

This pattern should outrage everybody
Posted by Jill | 9:13 AM

Attytood has an excellent analysis and chronology of the Bush Administration crying wolf about terrorist threats every time it finds itself under siege.

And Newsbusters discusses how once again, Keith Olbermann, the Last Real Journalist in America, is the only one who notices that the threats ratchet up every time the Bush Administration is in trouble.
Bookmark and Share

Abramoff's tentacles snag another Bush crony
Posted by Jill | 5:51 AM

Does it ever stop? At what point do we start realizing that EVERYONE Bush knows is crooked?

President Bush's pick for the second-ranking position at the Justice Department abruptly withdrew his nomination Friday after facing weeks of questions over his ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff as well as his role in formulating policies for the treatment of suspected terrorists.

The nominee, Timothy Flanigan, a former deputy White House counsel who is now a senior lawyer at Tyco International, had been scheduled to face yet another round of questioning next week from senators who had grown skeptical about his nomination as deputy attorney general.

Of chief concern to Democrats and some Republicans was Mr. Flanigan's role at Tyco, where as its general counsel he oversaw Mr. Abramoff's work lobbying for the company, which is based in Bermuda, to retain its tax-exempt status.
Bookmark and Share

Turdblossom could be in serious trouble
Posted by Jill | 5:44 AM

Joe Conason on why (and it resurrects the journalistic corpse of JimmyJeff, too):

On Oct. 24, 2003, the Washington Post reported that Rove and McClellan, among dozens of others, had submitted to FBI interrogation about the leaks. Two months later, the Post quoted administration officials saying that Rove had been among the very first people to be interviewed by the FBI in pursuit of information about the case.

Back then, Rove might well have assumed that the case would be buried without any undue inconvenience to him. The president had publicly predicted, after all, that the perpetrators of the leak were unlikely to be identified. There was no reason, at the outset, to think that an independent-minded prosecutor would take over from Ashcroft a few months later.

If Rove told the FBI agents the same story that he and McClellan were telling the press, then he might have set himself up for a felony charge of lying to a federal law enforcement official. And if he lied, then he need not have been under oath to have committed a crime.

Another intriguing possibility in the leaks case brings back the baroque personality of right-wing pressroom denizen Jeff Gannon, born James Guckert.

The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson's identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it -- which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act.

One such classified item might be the still-classified State Department document, written by an official of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, concerning the CIA's decision to send former ambassador Joseph Wilson to look into allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Someone leaked that INR document -- which inaccurately indicated that Wilson's assignment was the result of lobbying within CIA by his wife, Valerie -- to right-wing media outlets, notably including Gannon's former employers at Talon News. On Oct. 28, 2003, Gannon posted an interview with Joseph Wilson on the Talon Web site, in which he posed the following question: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

Gannon later hinted, rather coyly, that he had learned about the INR memo from an article in the Wall Street Journal. He also told reporters last February that FBI agents working for Fitzgerald had questioned him about where he got the memo. At the very least, that can be interpreted as confirming today's Times report about the direction of the case.
Bookmark and Share

How nice of AP to cushion the blow to C-Plus Caligula
Posted by Jill | 5:37 AM

It should read "Everybody Hates George", but instead it reads:

Poll: Groups Unhappy With Bush Performance

Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

[snip]

Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction while two-thirds, 66 percent, say it is on the wrong track, the poll found.

"There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country," said Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio, who believes the reasons for their pessimism differ for those in one political party or another.


Figure that out all by yourself, Einstein? Perhaps it's because your boy has done to the country what he did with every business he ever ran -- fuck it up beyond recognition.

Among those most likely to have lost confidence about the nation's direction over the past year are white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points since November, Republican women, down 28 points, Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20 points.

Bush's supporters are uneasy about issues such as federal deficits, immigration and his latest nomination for the Supreme Court. Social conservatives are concerned about his choice of Miers, a relatively unknown lawyer who has most recently served as White House counsel.

"Bush is trying to get more support generally from the American public by seeming more moderate and showing he's a strong leader at the same time he has a rebellion within his own party," Thurber said. "The far right is starting to be very open about their claim that he's not a real conservative."

The president's job approval is mired at the lowest level of his presidency — 39 percent. While four of five Republicans say they approve of Bush's job performance — enthusiasm in that support has dipped over the last year.

In December 2004, soon after his re-election, almost two-thirds of Republicans strongly approved of the job done by Bush. The AP-Ipsos survey found that just half in his own party feel that way now.


There's only so long even the most die-hard supporters can delude themselves. Oh, sure, there are still the Bush cultists, the women who think he's cute, the knee-jerkers who will support him no matter what. But the rest of the country is waking up. Unfortunately, they're waking up to the nastiest hangover in recorded history.

And as for that headline? When 72% think the country is headed in the wrong direction, that hardly qualifies as "groups." Mobs, perhaps.
Bookmark and Share
Friday, October 07, 2005

Quote of the Day
Posted by Jill | 12:17 PM

From the amazing Driftglass, regarding George Will's anti-Bush screed this week:

How dare you act shocked you spindly, little pimple: Dubya is doing nothing more than behaving exactly as the Evil Liberals warned all you mentally-underclocking 286 chipset Republicans he would behave.

Shit, why don’t you just do what you guys always do, George? Roll over, vomit out a few of the hundreds of gallons of Wormwood jizz that the Administration has shotgunned down your gullet, mop the Bushkkake off your face, get shakily back up on your hind legs, look owlishy all around with your hair still “Something About Mary” spikey from the latest load Dubya-mousse, stare into the camera with your haunted, blown-out, spoo-stung haint-eyes and say,

“…but...but...but...the Liberals.”
Bookmark and Share

Now they don't want to have to dispense AIDS drugs
Posted by Jill | 8:18 AM

Mr. Brilliant and I have had some arguments about whether a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives if doing so would violate his/her religious beliefs. Mr. Brilliant, always the logical one, set it forth as a religious freedom on the job issue -- not that he agrees with it, but when he plays the devil's advocate in these discussions, it keeps me sharp.

Reproductive self-determination is the issue that too many progressive men are willing to compromise on in the name of advancing our political candidates. But like so many issues that would seem to not be relevant to must of us (read: gay issues), this is one on which we simply cannot compromise.

Here's why:

A proposed regulation which would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on the druggists moral views could be used to deny HIV/AIDS patients live saving medication a health advocate warns.

The Wyoming Board of Pharmacy is considering the rule change amid pressure by conservative groups opposed to the sale of contraceptives and birth control pills.

But, the regulation could be used to deny service in many other areas critics charge.

"It is so broad, that any pharmacist with any personal belief that is contrary to any particular drug is allowed to refuse to fill a legal prescription," Pamela Reamer Williams, director of the Casper-based Wyoming AIDS Project told the Star-Tribune.

"Health care professionals are supposed to help. They're not supposed to judge."

Currently, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense a drug if they think a prescription may harm a patient or if the patient is being overmedicated. But Wyoming law is silent on moral conflicts.

Reamer Williams said that the rule change could allow druggists to turn away people they thought were gay.

"It's no secret to any of us that there are people in this state who have religious and moral objections to homosexuality, and it's not just homosexuals in this state or anywhere else that are living with AIDS," Reamer Williams told the paper.

"Some of these are people who never shot drugs, never had sex outside of marriage, did absolutely everything that was the moral way to behave, and they still ended up with HIV."

The board will consider the rule change when it meets next month.


To those who would argue that it's OK to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives on the grounds that doing so would tacitly approve of non-procreative sex, does that extend to refusal to provide AIDS drugs on the grounds that your religion believes that AIDS sufferers deserved to be punished for sexual activity?

(hat tip: Pam)
Bookmark and Share

The Gray Lady hammers Bush HARD
Posted by Jill | 8:04 AM

The New York Times hasn't sucked up to the Bush Administration quite as aggressively as the Washington Post, but we haven't seen an editorial quite this brutal until today. Even Bill Keller can't pretend any more that Bush knows what he's doing:

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

[snip]

He seemed to be reading from a very old and familiar script as he revealed that terrorists recruit "disillusioned young men and women," some of whom build weapons based on information available on the Internet. He shared his conviction that "it is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs." He said his team was "reforming our intelligence agency" and reorganizing government for "a broad and coordinated homeland defense."

Americans have seen the Department of Homeland Security in action for several years now, under two directors. The first, a former governor with whom the president had a good personal relationship, was an inept bureaucratic and political player who had a strange obsession with color-coded states of emergency. The current one was at the helm during the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster in New Orleans, when that agency was overseen by an unqualified political appointee.

The administration is still trying to recover politically from Katrina. The hurricane was not just a bad stretch that could be cured by a promise of federal aid and a demonstration of presidential concern. The hurricane showed that despite four years of spinning, America is still unprepared for a catastrophe. It raised major questions about the caliber of people with whom Mr. Bush surrounds himself.

Ever since the terrorist attacks, the main thing Americans have wanted from Washington is a sense of safety. That takes more than hyperalertness to suicide bombing threats, important as that is. No matter what the terrorists are up to, it is not possible to feel safe if the federal government does not appear to know what it is doing on so many different levels.

[snip]

He seemed to be reading from a very old and familiar script as he revealed that terrorists recruit "disillusioned young men and women," some of whom build weapons based on information available on the Internet. He shared his conviction that "it is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs." He said his team was "reforming our intelligence agency" and reorganizing government for "a broad and coordinated homeland defense."

Americans have seen the Department of Homeland Security in action for several years now, under two directors. The first, a former governor with whom the president had a good personal relationship, was an inept bureaucratic and political player who had a strange obsession with color-coded states of emergency. The current one was at the helm during the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster in New Orleans, when that agency was overseen by an unqualified political appointee.

The administration is still trying to recover politically from Katrina. The hurricane was not just a bad stretch that could be cured by a promise of federal aid and a demonstration of presidential concern. The hurricane showed that despite four years of spinning, America is still unprepared for a catastrophe. It raised major questions about the caliber of people with whom Mr. Bush surrounds himself.

Ever since the terrorist attacks, the main thing Americans have wanted from Washington is a sense of safety. That takes more than hyperalertness to suicide bombing threats, important as that is. No matter what the terrorists are up to, it is not possible to feel safe if the federal government does not appear to know what it is doing on so many different levels.
Bookmark and Share

Now he's lost EVERYONE but the Bush cultists
Posted by Jill | 6:23 AM

Only those who would support Bush if he were caught sodomizing children on live television still support him now.

CBS News poll:

26% think the country is going in the right direction.

69% think it's on the wrong track.

37% approve of the job C-Plus Caligula is doing. (Only 29% of independents, those "swing voters" on which he depended)

46% approve of his job on the so-called war on terrorism.

32% approve of his handling of the Iraq war.

32% approve of his handling of the economy.

45% approve of his handling of Hurricane Katrina.

32% say Bush shares their priorities for the country.

45% say he has strong leadership qualities. (So much for approval of that "resoluteness" that as long as we're in the hole that is Iraq, we might as well keep digging.)

10% think the economy is getting better.

44% think that oil companies are to blame for rising gas and oil prices (which means they're noting the insane profits that oil companies are making, at the same time that Congressional Republicans want to give them even MORE government money).

62% favor cutting spending in Iraq to pay for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

Now if Democrats think they are the automatic beneficiaries of this dissatisfaction and all they have to do is more of the same, guess again: 46% have an unfavorable view of Democrats vs. 53% for Republicans. This means nearly HALF still disapprove of the job Democrats are doing.

The Democratic Party has to start offering a very real alternative to Republican policies, not just a less incompetent version of the same. Most Americans do NOT want a massive transfer of wealth to the already-rich. Most Americans want health care, good schools, roads, transit systems that work, -- and they want national security. So far the Democrats have utterly failed to articulate a vision or set of policies. Last weekend, Rahm Emannuel made a dismal presence on Press the Meat, offering rebuttal after rebuttal, stating what Democrats want to do, and nothing about how to get there. Given that the Republicans still own the voting apparatus, they'd better get their act together PDQ, or else we'll be looking at this kind of country -- and worse -- in perpetuity.
Bookmark and Share
Thursday, October 06, 2005

Now I KNOW Rove is going to be indicted
Posted by Jill | 5:47 PM

How do I know? Because the Bush Administration pattern of revelations of alleged terrorist threats whenever it's in trouble continues:

The New York City Police Department is investigating what it deems a credible tip that 19 operatives have been deployed to New York to place bombs in the subway, and security in the subways will be increased, sources told ABC News.

While the police department is taking the threat seriously, it is also urging the public not to be alarmed because – while the source is credible – the information has not been verified.

According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, when three Iraqi insurgents were arrested several days ago during a raid by a joint FBI-CIA team, one of those caught disclosed the threat. Because it slipped out during the arrest, the plot was deemed credible.

After several days of work, sources said, the NYPD is increasingly concerned because it has been unable to discredit the initial source and additional information from the source.

The 19 operatives were to place improvised explosive devices in the subways using briefcases, according to two sources.

The police are deploying additional officers, dogs and heavy weapons teams in subways and commuter rail terminals, sources said.

Department of Homeland Security sources told ABC News they are very doubtful the threat information is credible, though NYPD sources said the information continues to come in and is disturbing.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press, "Obviously, this is a significant threat."


Credible/not credible. Verifiable/not verifiable. This is the same tactic they use every time -- get the word out, then make people's heads spin with this kind of yes/no, cover-all-the-bases rhetoric. It's all designed to take attention away from the fact that the President's top adviser is in all likelihood about to be indicted, and quite possibly the President himself.

I'll tell you this much: If a bomb goes off in the New York City subway in the next week, given the timing of this warning, I'll know for certain that it wasn't Iraqi terrorists responsible -- it'll be the Bush Administration who perpetrated it, under the "Who Benefits" rule.
Bookmark and Share

Turdblossom is sweating....
Posted by Jill | 4:19 PM

This is interesting:

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President George W. Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney’s manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.


Sounds like Turdie is pretty sure he's going to be indicted and he's trying to get out of it by singing like a canary.

I wonder how much of that song is going to be about C-Plus Caligula?

The suspense is killing me....

UPDATE: Tim Grieve at Salon's War Room weighs in:

So Karl Rove is returning to testify before the grand jury investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, and he's doing so without any guarantee that Patrick Fitzgerald won't prosecute him. How big of a development is this? "Stunning," a former federal prosecutor tells us. "There is no reason for Rove to make this appearance unless he and his counsel believe he is at serious risk of indictment. None."

It's always risky to go before a grand jury. You can't take your lawyer into the room with you, and you don't know what the grand jury knows or doesn't know. It's especially risky if you've already testified once -- or, in the case of Rove, three times -- before: The odds of introducing inconsistencies into your testimony increase each time you give it. That's why, the former prosecutor tells us, a defense lawyer would advise his client to make a return appearance before the grand jury only in extreme circumstances.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers offers a similar assessment to the Associated Press. He calls Rove's return trip to the grand jury room an "ominous sign" that suggests Fitzgerald "has learned new information that is tightening the noose" around Rove's neck. "It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after [Judith] Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove."

It's possible, of course, that Rove is returning to the grand jury in the hope of saving someone other than himself. Conversely, it's also possible that he's testifying in the hope of implicating someone other than himself.

But what's clear, either way, is that Rove himself is now at risk of prosecution. According to the AP, Fitzgerald has sent Rove's legal team a letter in connection with his upcoming testimony in which the prosecutor says he can't guarantee that Rove won't be charged with a crime. The U.S. Attorneys Manual requires federal prosecutors to issue such a warning before anyone they consider a "target" or a "subject" of an investigation appears before a grand jury. As the manual explains, "target" is "a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." A "subject" is "a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."

So is Rove a "target" or at least a "subject" now? We don't know for sure, but the fact that Fitzgerald felt compelled to give him a warning suggests that he might be.
Bookmark and Share

Lost in America (spoilers)
Posted by Jill | 3:58 PM

ModFab has a nice quickie post on last night's episode of Lost, along with cool links to the organizations unveiled therein.

So far, this season is really helping me get over my feelings of loss about the Fishers -- something I didn't quite expect. Because while the Lost characters are being unveiled slowly, like peeling onions, the Fishers were, well, family. But for all its large cast, Lost is less driven by character and more driven by its increasingly convoluted plot. It's really mind-boggling to see something this non-linear on network television. There's nothing all that original here, nothing that Rod Serling couldn't have come up with in his heyday, but despite all the Night Galleries and Outer Limitses and New Twilight Zones that have come up in the years since my childhood, when all the dorky kids like me in the neighborhood would rather have detention for a week than miss The Twilight Zone, nothing has equalled that sense of reality turned on its ear -- until now.

Remember the first time you watched as the woman shrieked "To Serve Man -- it's a cookbook!"? Or when the camera panned back and the deserted village in which that couple found themselves turned out to be a plaything for a giant child? That's the kind of chill that went down my spine last night when Locke said, "I'll take the first shift..."
Bookmark and Share

Best. Congressman. Ever.
Posted by Jill | 3:31 PM

It just ain't fair, I tell ya. Some of us get Scott Garrett as our representative, and others get this guy.

(hat tip: Alterman)
Bookmark and Share

America's poor and working people are still waiting for the trickle
Posted by Jill | 3:21 PM

...but all they've gotten is pissed on:

After falling for two years, the share of income going to the richest slice of Americans - the top tenth of 1 percent - grew significantly in 2003 while the share going to 99 percent of Americans fell, tax data released yesterday showed.

At the same time, the effective income tax rates paid by the top tenth of 1 percent fell sharply, declining at more than 10 times the rate reduction for middle-class taxpayers, the new report, by the Internal Revenue Service, showed.

Overall incomes rose by 2.7 percent in 2003, compared with the previous year, the I.R.S. said. A quarter of this increase went to the top tenth of 1 percent, the 129,000 taxpayers with reported incomes of $1.3 million or more, an analysis of the data showed.

Prof. Edward N. Wolff, a New York University economist who studies wealth, contended that the data could be tied to stock market gains in 2003 and a sharp rise in the pay of chief executives while most workers' pay was barely keeping up with inflation.

The top 10th of 1 percent paid almost 23.6 percent of their reported income in income taxes in 2003, down from just under 27 percent in 2002. That is a decline of 3.4 percentage points. For taxpayers in the bottom 80 percent, the effective tax rates fall by three-tenths of a percentage point or less.

Only for those Americans in the top 1 percent, the nearly 1.3 million taxpayers who made at least $327,000, did incomes increase significantly more in 2003 than the rate of inflation. And this increase was concentrated within the top tenth of 1 percent. The income of that group grew by 9.5 percent in 2003 over the previous year while the rest of the top 1 percent had a gain of 3.7 percent.

For the bottom 99 percent of taxpayers, income rose by slightly less than 2 percent, which was below the inflation rate of 2.3 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers received almost 17.5 percent of all income and paid a third of all income taxes in 2003, the I.R.S. found. The top tenth of 1 percent received 7.57 percent of reported income and paid more than 15.3 percent of all income taxes.

The share of all reported income reported by the top 1 percent of taxpayers increased by 0.57 percentage point, compared with 2002. Nearly all of this increase - 0.47 percentage point - went to the top tenth of 1 percent.

The top tenth of 1 percent had more income in 2003 than the poorest third of taxpayers, a group with 330 times the number of people, analysis of the data showed. This is a sharp change from 1979, the earliest year in the I.R.S. report, when the total income of the poorest third of Americans exceeded that garnered by the top tenth of 1 percent by 2.5 to 1.

The I.R.S. data tend to understate incomes for those at the very top because of different rules for reporting wages and capital gains, meaning the actual disparity was larger than the official data show.


So if you were wondering why the Bush Administration keeps talking about putting more money into Americans' pockets, but your pockets aren't showing it, that's why. Because in HIS book, only the wealthy qualify as real Americans. The rest of us are only alive in this country on their sufferance.
Bookmark and Share

We used to call guys who said things like this "lunatics"
Posted by Jill | 1:18 PM

Now we call them "Mr. President."

Further proof of the sociopathic, narcissistic nature of George W. Bush:

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"


And if God tells him to nuke New York, or to release a vial of avian flu on the BART, that would be OK too? Are we supposed to believe that someone who acts based on what he believes God tells him to do is in any mental condition to be president? How many mass murderers have committed their crimes because God told them to? Family killer John List may not have said he was explicitly instructed by God, but he did feel justified in killing his family because they were straying from God and he knew he'd be forgiven and see them in heaven:

Asked why he had not just killed himself when he saw debt mounting up, he explained that suicide barred him from heaven. He had a better chance of going to heaven if he murdered his family and then sought forgiveness. In fact, he fully expected not only to see all of them in heaven but that they'd have either forgiven him or would not know about the "tragedy that had happened," as he'd put it in his trial statement to the judge. He suspected they would all get along as before.


Many other killings and other atrocities have taken place because people claim to know the will of God. Osama Bin Laden and those who follow him are among them, and we've seen what happens when people think they are personally guided by God.

I don't know about you, but when I see a U.S. president, with access to all kinds of nuclear and biological weapons -- the kind he said we had to keep from Saddam Hussein who was a madman -- and he's saying God talks to him, well, that scares the living daylights out of me.
Bookmark and Share

Tell me one thing that Bush has done right
Posted by Jill | 10:21 AM

Because Great Minds Think Alike, ModFab also has a terrific lineup of Bush Administration and Republican failures, foibles, and just plain scumbaggery, for your entertainment and edification.
Bookmark and Share

Here's why Bush wants to use the military in the event of a flu pandemic
Posted by Jill | 9:39 AM

Well, aside from the fact that he's been longing to turn this country into a military dictatorship (with himself as dictator) since he took office in 2000.

But we may need such draconian quarantine measures, because "Brownie" and "Harriet" aren't the only Federal officials whose only qualification are undying, blind loyalty to the Republican Party.

The Assistant Scretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness is Tommy Thompson protegé and Bush campaign contributor Stewart Simonsen.

Transparent Grid has more:

Simonson graduated from the University of Wisconsin law school in 1994 and served as legal counsel to Tommy Thompson while he was governor of Wisconsin from 1995 to 1999. Simonson then followed Thompson to Washington when the governor was appointed as head of HHS. Simonson’s bio at HHS states that “from 2001-2003, he was the HHS Deputy General Counsel and provided legal advice and counsel to the Secretary on public health preparedness matters. Prior to joining HHS, Simonson served as corporate secretary and counsel for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK).”

Congressman Henry Waxman has recently pointed to Simonson as an example where Bush has “repeatedly appointed inexperienced individuals with political connections to important government posts, including positions with key responsibilities for public health and safety.”

In addition to being very close to Thompson, Simonson has given generously to the Bush political machine. The website, Political Money Line’s contribution database shows that he contributed $3,000 to various Bush-Cheney committees in the 2004 election cycle and gave $250 to the RNC. (Which for a $134,000 a year job is more than chump change.)

The Washington Drug Letter published an article in its December 2004 issue in which Hauer was harshly critical of Simonson:

Speaking as part of a biodefense panel in Washington, D.C. Dec. 15, Jerome Hauer, formerly the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness (ASPHEP) at HHS, said the $877 million contract awarded to VaxGen to produce a new anthrax vaccine was insufficient. He also insinuated poor policymaking has left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction.

Hauer faulted the current management at the ASPHEP Office, including acting secretary Stewart Simonson, for not being better prepared to handle its duties. He called for the creation of a new federal office to coordinate U.S. biodefense activities.
. . .
“The decisions being made do not appear to have a sound basis,” said Hauer, currently senior vice president of government relations for consulting firm Fleishman-Hillard.



Now, don't you feel better now that you know that your health and that of your children may depend on yet another Republican political operative with no qualifications for his job?
Bookmark and Share

Why blogs are important
Posted by Jill | 7:22 AM

One of the most-covered stories in Blogtopia yesterday was the Indiana bill sponsored by state Sen. Patricia Miller that would essentially limit availability of reproductive technologies to white, Christian, heterosexual, married couples with a single breadwinner, stay-at-home mom, and regular attendance at church.

It looks like we've had an effect, because Miller has dropped the bill:

State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday saying: "The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission."

Miller said later that the issue of regulating assisted reproduction, just as the state regulates adoption, is multifaceted. She said there was not enough time for the committee -- a panel of lawmakers that meets when the Indiana General Assembly is not in session to discuss possible legislation -- to work through all of the issues involved by its next meeting Oct. 20.


I would guess we're all going to monitor Ms. Miller very carefully over the next year, because this is NOT something she's going to just let die.

Vigilance! (TM Kent Jones)
Bookmark and Share

Alexander Hamilton on George W. Bush's Supreme Court appointment
Posted by Jill | 7:16 AM

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #76:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate?

"I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.

In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration. It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature.

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other.

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


In short, if Alexander Hamilton saw George W. Bush nominate a Supreme Court Justice whose ONLY qualification was blind, dumb, loyalty to himself, he's bitchslap him back to 1788.

(hat tip: TPM Café)
Bookmark and Share

Remember the outcry over the Clinton pardons?
Posted by Jill | 6:58 AM

Funny how you didn't read about these pardons by George W. Bush, accomplished while the media were otherwise occupied -- with the Tom DeLay indictments:


  • Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind. – Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and mail fraud
  • Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas – Misprision of a felony;
  • Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark. – Receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce;
  • Morris F. Cranmer, Jr., Little Rock, Ark – Making materially false statements to a federally-insured institution
  • Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn. – Making counterfeit Federal Reserve notes
  • Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah – Conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD
  • Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga. – Possession and selling of tax-unpaid whiskey
  • Jesse Ray Harvey, Scarbro, W.Va – Property damage by use of explosives and destruction of an energy facility [This is the kind of guy Bush probably hung out with during his drunk years...I mean his PREVIOUS drunk years]
  • Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn – Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
  • Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla – Conspiracy to import marijuana
  • Bobbie Archie Maxwell – Mailing a threatening letter [You mean like an anthrax letter? Just askin' is all...]
  • Denise Bitters Mendelkow – Embezzlement by a bank employee
  • Michael John Pozorski – Unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm
  • Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark. – Selling Quaalude tablets (one specification), selling, using, and possessing marijuana (three specifications)


That's an awful lot of drug pardons from a president whose FBI has decided to focus more efforts on the so-called War On Drugs, don'tcha think?

My goodness, where is the Republican respect for the rule of law?
Bookmark and Share

The Republican Cornucopia of Scandals
Posted by Jill | 6:14 AM

You're really starting to need a scorecard to keep track of them.

OUTSIDE the Administration, you have the Republican House Majority Leader under two separate indictments, one of them for money laundering.

You have the Republican Senate Majority Leader under investigation for insider trading.

Now, the guy who replaced Tom DeLay has House Majority Leader has his own ethics problem as the tentacles of Jack Abramoff reveal themselves. It seems Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt and his evil spawn, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt, were in on the game as well.

And let's not forget the Ohio GOP coin scandal, which demonstrates how the party's organization in that state, the one which threw the White House back to George W. Bush, is rotten to the core.

INSIDE the Administration, you have Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin pleading guilty yesterday to giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat.

You have former White House chief procurement official David Safavian indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice in the investigation of Jack Abramoff.

You have former Marine and White House aide and intelligence analyst Leandro Aragoncillo under investigation for allegedly misusing his top-secret clearance to steal classified information from computers and sending it to people in the Philippines. [Gavin at Sadly, No wonders if Michelle Malkin still favors internment camps....]

And rumors are swirling of up to 22 indictments about to be made by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame outing case. In the past, Karl Rove's attorney has said that his client is not a target of the case. Now, he's not saying anything one way or the other.

Now, it's entirely possible that Fitzgerald could conclude that no crime was committed, so I dare not get my hopes up. But the change in Robert Luskin's tone is interesting, to say the least.

And these are the people who claim to be the upholders of moral behavior in the United States? Funny how the same people who shrieked about Clinton seem to think that there's absolutely nothing to ANY of these investigations. Smoke, fire, etc.
Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, October 05, 2005

This is what we're up against, folks
Posted by Jill | 3:35 PM

Recounteth Klipper at Are You Effin' Kidding Me:

a while ago I wrote a post about my cousin the navy pilot? We talked about the "liberal vs. patriot" theme?

Well, he got married this weekend and we went to his wedding. So did many Navy people. They're all very nice, some of their minds, however, are filled with nonsense.

My brother, the best man, was in the limo with the other groomsmen when he heard this gem from a pilot:

"Well, if Clinton had the balls to finish the job he started in Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess now!"

My brother said something to the effect of "Clinton wasn't president during the gulf war."

"Sure was! Bush's father had to come in and clean up his mess."


How can we ever possibly hope to reach people who are this effing stupid?
Bookmark and Share

Corpses and Double Standards
Posted by Jill | 2:12 PM

It's too bad that the families of the dead from Hurricane Katrina don't have the kind of vocal, well-connected advocates that many of the 9/11 families became in order to try (with mixed success) to ensure that their loved ones' remains were found and handled with respect. Because the feds are about to throw in the towel.

Gee, do you think it's because so many of the hurricane dead are black?

Five weeks after Katrina, New Orleans is calling off the house- to-house search for bodies. Teams have pulled 964 corpses from storm- ravaged areas across southeastern Louisiana. Authorities admit more bodies are probably out there. They'll be handled on a case-by-case basis. The count is far short of the 10,000 dead once predicted by New Orleans mayor. As of today, the death toll from Hurricane Katrina stands at just under 1,200.

Searchers and residents insist there are still plenty of dead to find in New Orleans. Once again, they say the Ninth Ward is being ignored because it is poor and black. Here's CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: (voice- over): In pulverized portions of New Orleans's Ninth Ward, where water flows, instead of traffic, most homes bear the signs that search teams have been in to look for the living and the dead, but not in one area that spans several blocks. Here, house after house after house is unmarked.

EDWARD MENDEL, SEARCH VOLUNTEER: From here back, I estimate 100 to 150 homes that are still unsearched. And I do expect we will probably find some bodies.

MESERVE (on camera): Why do you think that?

MENDEL: You can smell them as we drive by.

MESERVE (voice-over): Federal officials say search teams came through every house and ran out of paint to mark them. But volunteer Ed Mendel believes they were not able to go where he can on what he calls swamp thing, a vehicle designed for hunting pigs and deer in the Everglades and modified for rescue work.

MENDEL: It will drive in six feet of water. After that, it starts floating like a boat.

MESERVE: Mendel is particularly concerned about the unmarked homes he passes with nice cars still parked in the driveway.

MENDEL: That's a pretty bad indicator that there may be a recovery involved there.

MESERVE: And then there are the places where houses used to be.

MENDEL: I know there's bodies under the debris piles in the sides of the road. You can -- you can tell from the byproducts that comes off of humans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay right there. I'm going to pull you up.

MESERVE: Mendel picks up Roz Kay and Adam Irvin, a brother and sister who want to take a look at their family home.

ADAM IRVIN, NEW ORLEANS EVACUEE: I don't think I will be doing any more smoking or barbecuing back here, not at this house.


They're black, they're poor, and their families won't even be allowed back in to kick up a fuss; instead everything will be bulldozed for luxury hotels and casinos. So why should the feds trouble their beautiful minds about the corpses of black residents of New Orleans who won't even get a decent burial?
Bookmark and Share

No procreation without a penis
Posted by Jill | 10:20 AM
Pam, Tbogg, Feministe, and Amanda and the immediate world are all weighing in on one of the nuttiest ideas to hit Wingnuttia yet -- and we all know that Wingnuttia is the home of some pretty damn fine insanity.

An interim legislative committee is considering a bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.


Think if you're straight this doesn't apply to you? Read on:

The bill defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.


Think if you're straight and married, you're off the hook? Read on:

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.


Which means that if you're oh, say, a Wiccan, or unaffiliated with any religion; or if you don't want to be a stay-at-home Mom, or you got busted on a pot possession charge in 1972, the state might be able to refuse to allow you access to reproductive technology.

Now, I happen to think it SHOULD be more difficult to have kids. When I see parents letting kids run around in restaurants where there are waiters carrying heavy trays; or letting their kids play in the street wearing dark clothes after dark -- and let's forget for a moment about the crackheads and the alcoholics and people who dress their children like this -- I start to think that parenting should require a license, or at the very least some advance training. But this bill is clearly designed to get the state involved in determining that only white, middle-class, single-earner, heterosexual, Christian couples have access to reproductive technologies. And that's eugenics, folks.

This is the problem with straight people ignoring laws that seem to only affect gays. Because laws that affect any of us affect all of us.

UPDATE: ShakesSis has read through the whole thing, and notes that:

parents seeking a pregnancy through medical means would also have to produce financial records, documentation of previous marriages “and an assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended parents' relationship,” “the intended parents' child rearing expectations and values,” criminal records, child care plans, and a whole slew of other information, which, when taken as a whole, seems to indicate that Indiana doesn’t believe that anyone but straight, rich, Christian families with no past divorces and a stay-at-home mom are deserving of medical assisted procreation.


She also notes that very few male bloggers seem concerned about this. Just as many male bloggers seem perfectly willing to toss women's reproductive autonomy out the window as a necessary cost of "picking and choosing our battles."
Bookmark and Share

Another reason to boycott Wal-Mart
Posted by Jill | 9:16 AM

As if you needed another one:

elina Jarvis is the chair of the social studies department at Currituck County High School in North Carolina, and she is not used to having the Secret Service question her or one of her students.

But that’s what happened on September 20.

Jarvis had assigned her senior civics and economics class “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights,” she says. One student “had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb’s down sign with his own hand next to the President’s picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster.”

According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent.

But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service.

On Tuesday, September 20, the Secret Service came to Currituck High.“At 1:35, the student came to me and told me that the Secret Service had taken his poster,” Jarvis says. “I didn’t believe him at first. But they had come into my room when I wasn’t there and had taken his poster, which was in a stack with all the others.”

She says the student was upset.

“He was nervous, he was scared, and his parents were out of town on business,” says Jarvis.

She, too, had to talk to the Secret Service.

“Halfway through my afternoon class, the assistant principal got me out of class and took me to the office conference room,” she says. “Two men from the Secret Service were there. They asked me what I knew about the student. I told them he was a great kid, that he was in the homecoming court, and that he’d never been in any trouble.”

Then they got down to his poster.

“They asked me, didn’t I think that it was suspicious,” she recalls. “I said no, it was a Bill of Rights project!”

At the end of the meeting, they told her the incident “would be interpreted by the U.S. attorney, who would decide whether the student could be indicted,” she says.

The student was not indicted, and the Secret Service did not pursue the case further.

“I blame Wal-Mart more than anybody,” she says. “I was really disgusted with them. But everyone was using poor judgment, from Wal-Mart up to the Secret Service.”

A person in the photo department at the Wal-Mart in Kitty Hawk said, “You have to call either the home office or the authorities to get any information about that.”

Jacquie Young, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart at company headquarters, did not provide comment within a 24-hour period.

Sharon Davenport of the Kitty Hawk Police Department said, “We just handed it over” to the Secret Service. “No investigative report was filed.”

Jonathan Scherry, spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said, “We ertainly respect artistic freedom, but we also have the responsibility to look into incidents when necessary. In this case, it was brought to our attention from a private citizen, a photo lab employee.”


Now, by this logic, one of those pathetic women who moon over George W. Bush the way teenage girls used to moon over the Hanson boys would have to take great care NOT to put the thumbtack in his head, lest a neighbor who happened to see it report her to the Secret Service.

We always knew that Wal-Mart believed in imposing its morality onto the world at large, now they believe they have a right to crack down on Constitutionally-protected freedom of expression.

Are the Bushistas so insecure that they see something like this as a threat?

(hat tip: Bill in Portland Maine at Daily Kos. And by the way, shopping at Sam's Club instead of Wal-Mart also means giving tacit approval to such tactics. You know who you are.)
Bookmark and Share

Why do something about avian flu when you can use it as an excuse for martial law?
Posted by Jill | 6:39 AM

C-Plus Caligula (OK, Barry should be happy now) lost no time musing yesterday about the use of the military to enforce quarantine as the FIRST line of defense against avian flu. Given his past musings about how much easier it would be if he were dictator, one has to wonder how much of his Administration's inattention to this very real threat (as opposed to the ones he pulled out of his ass and for which he took us to war) is because, like the threat that resulted in 9/11, it would work to his advantage for it to play out.

WaPo:

Health officials have warned for years that a virulent bird flu could kill millions of people, but few in Washington have seemed alarmed. After a closed-door briefing last week, however, fear of an outbreak swept official Washington, which was still reeling from the poor response to Hurricane Katrina.

The day after the briefing, led by Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and other senior government health officials, the Senate squeezed $3.9 billion for flu preparations into a Pentagon appropriations bill.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats plan to introduce another bill calling for the creation of a flu pandemic coordinator within the White House and a federal buy-back program for unused flu vaccines, among other measures, according to a draft of the bill. Its authors include the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois; and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Thirty-two Democratic senators sent a letter to President Bush on Tuesday expressing "grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza."

Mr. Bush spent a considerable part of his news conference Tuesday talking about the risks of an outbreak and the measures the administration is considering to combat one, including whether to use the military to enforce quarantines.

"I take this issue very seriously," he said. "The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can."

But after the administration's widely criticized response to Hurricane Katrina, such assurances are no longer enough, several Democratic senators said.

" 'Trust us' is not something the administration can say after Katrina," Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said in an interview. "I don't think Congress is in a mood to trust. We want plans. We want specific goals and procedures we're going to take to prepare for this."


Now, I'm going to do something that you will never see a conservative blogger do in a similar post. I'm going to also point out the way the previous administration, headed by a president from my own party, also dropped the ball on avian flu, as cited in The Nation:

Under Democrats as well as Republicans, Washington has looked the other way as local health departments have lost funding and crucial hospital "surge capacity" has been eroded in the wake of the HMO revolution. The government has also refused to address the growing lack of new vaccines and antibiotics caused by the pharmaceutical industry's withdrawal from sectors it considers to be insufficiently profitable; moreover, revolutionary breakthroughs in vaccine design and manufacturing technology have languished because of lack of sponsorship by either the government or the drug industry.


The first human case of avian flu occurred in 1997. The antiviral drugs Relenza and Tamiflu were licensed in the U.S. in 1999. So a potential infrastructure has been in place since yes, the end of the Clinton Administration, to address the problem by stockpiling vaccine. But it has been more important to the Bush Administration to kill Iraqis and cut taxes for the wealthy than to institute policies to PREVENT an epidemic that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans -- far, far more than even the body count of 9/11. Instead, public health efforts have been invested solely in protecting Americans against Saddam Hussein's nonexistent biological agents:


Certainly the leading influenza researchers, from the first H5N1 outbreak in 1997, have been doing their utmost to alert medical colleagues worldwide to the urgent threat of avian flu, as well as outlining the immediate steps the Bush Administration and other governments needed to take. As befitted his position as "pope" of influenza researchers, Robert Webster of Saint Jude Hospital in Memphis tirelessly preached the same sermon: "If a pandemic happened today, hospital facilities would be overwhelmed and understaffed because many medical personnel would be afflicted with the disease. Vaccine production would be slow because many drug-company employees would also be victims. Critical community services would be immobilized. Reserves of existing vaccines, M2 inhibitors and NA inhibitors would be quickly depleted, leaving most people vulnerable to infection."

Webster stressed the particular urgency of increasing the production and stockpiling of the NA inhibitor Tamiflu. Because this strategic antiviral was "in woefully short supply"--it is made by Roche at a single factory in Switzerland--Webster and his colleagues underlined the need for resolute government action: "The cost of making the drugs, as opposed to the price the pharmaceutical companies charge consumers, would not be exorbitant. Such expenditure by governments would be a very worthwhile investment in the defense against this debilitating and often deadly virus." Failure to act would mean intense competition over the small inventory of life-saving Tamiflu. "Who should get these drugs?" Webster asked. "Healthcare workers and those in essential services, obviously, but who would identify those? There would not be nearly enough for those who needed them in the developed world, let alone the rest of the world's population."

Webster wasn't calling for miracles, just prudent action to insure an adequate antiviral stockpile. But for almost three years he and other influenza experts were ignored, as were those who argued more generally that "the best way to manage bioterrorism is to improve the management of existing public-health threats." The Bush Administration instead fast-tracked vaccination programs for smallpox and anthrax, based on fanciful scenarios that might have embarrassed Tom Clancy. In reality, the biodefense boom was designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq by sowing the fear that Saddam Hussein might use germ warfare against the United States. In any event, Washington spent $1 billion expanding a smallpox vaccine stockpile that some experts claim was already quite sufficient. Hundreds of thousands of GIs were forced to undergo the vaccinations, but front-line health workers--the second tier of the smallpox campaign--largely boycotted the Administration's attempts to cajole "voluntary" participation.

In spite of this fiasco and millions of doses of unused vaccine, the Administration pressed ahead with the development of second-generation smallpox and anthrax vaccines, as well as vaccines for such exotic plagues as ebola fever; it continued to reject the "all hazards" strategy recommended by most public-health experts in favor of a so-called "siloed approach" that focused on a short list of possible bioweapons. In testimony before the House of Representatives, Tommy Thompson explained that while "private investment should drive the development of most medical products," only the government was in a position to develop those products that "everyone hopes...will never be needed" as a protection against "rare yet deadly threats." The government, in other words, was willing to spend lots of money on biological threats that were unlikely or farfetched but not on antivirals or new antibiotics for the diseases that were actually most menacing, like avian flu.


And now what is his plan? Martial law. One can just imagine the woody he gets at the mere thought.
Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The incompetence of Harriet Miers
Posted by Jill | 1:41 PM

You can't make this stuff up.

Turns out that Harriet Miers is the one who handed George W. Bush the infamous August 6, 2001 PDB headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

E&P confirms it:

On its front page Tuesday, The New York Times published a photo of new U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers going over a briefing paper with President George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch “in August 2001,” the caption reads.

USA Today and the Boston Globe carried the photo labeled simply “2001,” but many other newspapers ran the picture in print or on the Web with a more precise date: Aug. 6, 2001.

Does that date sound familiar? Indeed, that was the date, a little over a month before 9/11, that President Bush was briefed on the now-famous “PDB” that declared that Osama Bin Laden was “determined” to attack the U.S. homeland, perhaps with hijacked planes. But does that mean that Miers had anything to do with that briefing?

As it turns out, yes, according to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency “Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.”


The E&P article focuses more on the way various newspapers captioned the accompanying photo, but the fact that Miers, like Bush, thought that this headline was insignificant says something about her fitness to serve in ANY government position, let alone on the Supreme Court.
Bookmark and Share

Quote of the Day
Posted by Jill | 12:02 PM
Your party has set aflame the entire political landscape, and now, once burned, you warn sternly from the branches of a burnt-out tree about "playing with fire". You used the ashes of one of the great liberal cities of America, New York City, as war paint for your own sick, racist dreams. You shudder at a burning flag, yet are willing to snip-and-cut basic tenets of the Constitution as needed or convenient.


By "Hunter" at dKos. Go read the whole thing. It's worth it. Then tell him so.
Bookmark and Share

I hope these guys show more cojones than the entrenched Democrats
Posted by Jill | 8:15 AM

Just when it seemed that there were no up-and-comers in the Democratic Party, here come the Iraq war veterans:

Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Iraq war are asking questions about President Bush's policies in Iraq as part of their broader Democratic campaigns to win congressional seats in next year's elections.

Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

"Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country," said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. "We need to have an exit strategy now."


Now, we all know that the Yellow Elephants and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, led by Jonah the Spawn of Lucianne Goldberg and the Virgin Ben, are going to try to swiftboat these guys, but if Paul Hackett is any indication, these are not genteel John Kerry Democrats; these guys are going to come out swinging. And as soon as they do, I'm going to post buttons for donations, because if there was ever an opportunity to show the power and yes, patriotism of the netroots, this is it. With Barack Obama, the most recent Great Hope of the Democratic Party, already showing an alarming tendency to diss the netroots and kowtow to his Republican colleagues, we need representatives who will fight for us. Maybe these guys will. Stay tuned.
Bookmark and Share

Harriet Miers is the Second Coming of Ken Lay
Posted by Jill | 6:50 AM

Have you headed up a corrupt corporation? Then YOU TOO may be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court!

If it's good enough for Harriet Miers, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?

David Sirota reports that Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors."

Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented

the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law-firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' lawfirm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

If you think Miers wasn't involved in any of this -- think again. Miers wasn't just any old lawyer at the firm. She was the Managing Partner -- the big cheese. True, she could claim she had no idea this was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off investors.


But do you think for one minute that any of this is going to matter to the castrated, weak-ass Democrats who are going to vote for her in lockstep? Not one bit.

Harriet Miers is a clear example of the IOKIYAR rule, and now not only is it OK, but it entitles you to sit on the highest court in the country.
Bookmark and Share

So much for small businesses being the lifeblood of America
Posted by Jill | 6:44 AM

C-Plus Nero has given a lot of lip service to small businesses and an entrepreneurship culture, but when it comes to parceling out Federal dough for Gulf state reconstruction, only the Big Boys need apply:

Companies outside the three states most affected by Hurricane Katrina have received more than 90 percent of the money from prime federal contracts for recovery and reconstruction of the Gulf Coast, according to an analysis of available government data.

The analysis by The Washington Post takes into account only the first wave of federal contracts, those that had been entered in detail into government databases as of yesterday. Together they are valued at more than $2 billion. Congress has allocated more than $60 billion for the recovery effort, and the ultimate total is expected to rise far higher.

But already the trend toward out-of-state firms is clear, despite pledges by administration officials that federal funds for Katrina relief will become an engine of local economic redevelopment. Among the contracts analyzed, 3.8 percent of the money went to companies that listed an Alabama address, 2.8 percent to firms in Louisiana and just 1.8 percent went for Mississippi contractors. Taken together, that amounts to less than $200 million.

The lack of contracts for firms in the devastated area has angered local political and business leaders who say they fear that even with the massive commitment of federal money, the region's recovery will be stymied if funds primarily flow into the pockets of large, out-of-state corporations. It has also raised the ire of small-business advocates, who say the government has tilted the playing field against the companies that most desperately need the work.

"The large federal agencies know the large, national corporations -- people who have access. The smaller, local companies do not have that access," said Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). "So the large corporate players are getting the contracts. And the small, local ones that need to put people back to work are at a disadvantage."


The only question is why people like "Chip" Pickering are surprised This Administration gives back only to those who have given to it. Small businesses in the Gulf states don't have enough money to buy access, so they get stiffed on reconstruction money. It's very simple. And it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Bookmark and Share

There sure are a lot of blatantly partisan grand juries in Texas
Posted by Jill | 6:38 AM

Why are TWO grand juries in Texas out to destroy such a fine, upstanding young man as Tom DeLay?

A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday for alleged involvement in money laundering related to the 2002 Texas election, raising new and more serious allegations than the conspiracy charge lodged against the former House majority leader last week.

The surprising new indictments followed by a matter of hours a motion by DeLay's Texas legal defense team to quash last week's charge on grounds that the Texas prosecutor in charge of the case lacked authority to bring it. The lawyers alleged that the crime of conspiracy was not covered by the state election law at the time of the alleged violation.

Later on Monday, a different grand jury -- which had no prior involvement in the case -- brought the new charges, which roughly match allegations made against two of DeLay's political associates one year ago.

DeLay, who had earlier accused the prosecutor -- Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle -- of partisan zealotry, promptly issued a statement accusing him of stooping "to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse." DeLay said Earle "is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate." The congressman added: "This is an abomination of justice."

One count of the new indictment accuses DeLay of conspiracy to commit money laundering. It says he agreed with one or more associates to launder $190,000 in corporate contributions through an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington, allowing the funds to be passed illegally into the election campaigns of Republican candidates in Texas. Texas law prohibits the use of corporate money in political campaigns.

[snip]

The other new count alleges that DeLay and the two associates "did knowingly, conduct, supervise, and facilitate" the transfer of the $190,000 to Washington and back to Texas in violation of the state's money-laundering statutes. Last week's conspiracy charge, in contrast, involved the state's election law, and it was that linkage that DeLay's attorneys challenged


"Do over"? You mean like the kind of do-over YOUR guys did with Clinton when you didn't like the results of the 1992 ele3ction? That kind of do-over?

It's going to be very interesting to see how the wingnuts deal with this; whether they think Tom DeLay is worth staking the tatters of the GOP's remaining reputation on, or whether it's time to jettison him in the hope that they can salvage something of the 2006 elections. Not that they have to worry, because unless Democratic candidates are leading by 78%-20% on election day, we're going to see the same kind of exit polls saying one thing and final results saying another on Election Day 2006, with Chris Matthews dutifully reporting that it's SOLELY due to Christian conservatives turning out at the last minute.
Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 03, 2005

Why the wingnut trolls hate me
Posted by Jill | 9:55 PM

It's because of who my Inner European is:





Your Inner European is French!









Smart and sophisticated.

You have the best of everything - at least, *you* think so.




(Hat tip: Tami)
Bookmark and Share

Paul Rudnick: The funniest man alive
Posted by Jill | 3:59 PM
Bookmark and Share

Funniest. Trailer. Spoof. Ever.
Posted by Jill | 3:29 PM

Ever wonder what The Shining would have been like if it had been directed by James L. Brooks? Here ya go.

If you like this one, there are links to more here.


(Hat tip to Dan Meyer for first pointing this out at the Cinemarati blog)
Bookmark and Share

Thomasina Hagen
Posted by Jill | 2:29 PM

That's who C-Plus Nero has chosen as the most worthy and qualified candidate for the Supreme Court -- yet another crony appointment, only this one is someone who's called in all her markers.

It seems that Harriet Miers was not only the head of Bush's Supreme Court selection group (thereby pulling a Dick Cheney by nominating herself), but she also saved Bush's bacon in regard to his desertion from the National Guard:

White House counsel Harriet Miers has never served as a judge before, and while this career "hard-nosed lawyer" (as she is invariably described) from Texas certainly deserves some kudos for a trailblazing career as a female lawyer, she's not a legal scholar, either.

But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal.

Whatever Miers knows about the president's troubled past, she may soon be keeping that information underneath the black robe of an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Miers, who not long ago succeeded Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, is now Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

Miers is a skilled lawyer -- mainly on behalf of big business, including Microsoft and Disney -- and the first woman elected Texas State Bar President. But her main qualifications for the highest court in the land appear to be the same as most of Bush's recent appointments: She is unfailingly loyal to George W. Bush.

Here's how Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, on July 17, 2000, described her initial foray in the morass of Bush's Guard service:

The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.


So far, intriguing...but it gets better, and more complicated. At roughly the same time all of this was happening, Miers was also the Bush-named chair of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission. The biggest issue before Miers and the commission was whether to retain lottery operator Gtech, which had been implicated in a bribery scandal. Gtech's main lobbyist in Texas in the mid-1990s? None other than that same Ben Barnes who had the goods on how Bush got into the Guard and avoided Vietnam.

In 1997, Barnes was abruptly fired by Gtech. That's a bad thing, right? Well, on the other hand, they also gave him a $23 million severance payment. A short time later, Gtech -- despite the ongoing scandals -- got its contract renewed over two lower bidders. A former executive director thought the whole thing stunk:

The suit involving Barnes was brought by former Texas lottery director Lawrence Littwin, who was fired by the state lottery commission, headed by Bush appointee Harriet Miers, in October 1997 after five months on the job. It contends that Gtech Corp., which runs the state lottery and until February 1997 employed Barnes as a lobbyist for more than $3 million a year, was responsible for Littwin's dismissal.

Littwin's lawyers have suggested in court filings that Gtech was allowed to keep the lottery contract, which Littwin wanted to open up to competitive bidding, in return for Barnes's silence about Bush's entry into the Guard.

Barnes and his lawyers have denounced this "favor-repaid" theory in court pleadings as "preposterous . . . fantastic [and] fanciful." Littwin was fired after ordering a review of the campaign finance reports of various Texas politicians for any links to Gtech or other lottery contractors. But Littwin wasn't hired, or fired, until months after Barnes had severed his relationship with Gtech.


Littwin reportedly settled with Gtech for $300,000. This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers' top two credentials:

Loyalty...and a little inside information.


And that's all you have to be to be regarded as "qualified", as far as George W. Bush: unquestioningly loyal to the exclusion of ALL other considerations.

I hear via Kos that Harry Reid has said that Miers is A-OK with him. While I admire Kos' attempt to put lipstick on this particular pig by noting the canniptions being thrown by the denizens of Wingnuttia (linked as such because I'd rather sent traffic to Pam than to Frei Republik), I'm afraid this is yet one more instance of the Democrats capitulating without so much as a whimper.

So NOW can we start putting together a party that will fight for those of us who know that Bush is the worst thing ever to happen to this country? (And no, the Greens are NOT the answer.)

I hate it when Mr. Brilliant is right, and he sure was right about the Democrats.
Bookmark and Share

Jack Abramoff: A one-man Octopus
Posted by Jill | 6:58 AM

If there ever was a shandeh far di goyim, it's Jack Abramoff. I'd guess that before it's all over, Abramoff's dirty fingerprints will be all over most of the Republican scandals now cooking. Just a hunch.

Here's a sampling of how Abramoff's tentacles are everywhere:

1. Britain:

explosive civil servants have been asked to ensure it remains "sealed".

The 79-year-old former Premier is said to have met Congressman Tom DeLay in Britain while he was on a suspected favours-for-freebies scam.

In return for his free holiday, DeLay - who resigned as Republican leader of Congress last week after being accused of laundering political funds - allegedly backed legislation favourable to lobby groups.

Disclosing that US authorities were seeking aid from UK counterparts, a secret Home Office briefing says: "One visit to the UK involved a meeting with Mrs Margaret Thatcher.

"Evidence is sought from her about that meeting and her involvement in the alleged deception and violation of US criminal laws."


2. Guam:

KUAM News broke the story in 2001 about how the Superior Court of Guam entered into a contract with California-based attorney Howard Hills, who in turn hired Abramoff to assist in the lower court's efforts to prevent the passage of House Resolution 521. That legislation would amend Guam's Organic Act by giving the local Supreme Court administrative control over the entire Judiciary.

The lower court paid more than $400,000 to Hills, who turned the money over to Abramoff.

Just last month, the Los Angeles Times reported a federal grand jury on Guam was at one time investigating Abramoff for his lobbying activities here including his alleged secret arrangement with Superior Court officials for lobbying work. During KUAM News interviews in 2002 then-Superior Court administrator Tony Sanchez initially denied claims of hiring a lobbyist, only after KUAM presented Sanchez copies of more than thirty checks worth $9,000 each written to Hills and a lobbyist registration form clearly showing Abramoff had been hired to lobby public policies related to issues of judicial and legal structures for states and possessions, did Sanchez fess up.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office on Guam had refuted the allegations made in the L.A. Times article, saying Black was not demoted.

The office also alleges the newspaper article was filled with errors. As for today's New York Times article, a former Black colleague in Guam was quoted as saying, "Whatever the motivation in replacing Fred, his demotion meant that the investigation of Abramoff died."


And of course there's the murder of Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, from whom Abramoff and Adam Kidan purchased SunCruz casinos. TPM Cafe sums up this little goodie:

followers of the Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan indictment story may remember that Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, whom Abramoff and Kidan bought SunCruz casinos from for $147 million back in September 2000, was murdered in a "gangland-style" hit in February 2001. This was about 2 months after Boulis stabbed Kidan with a pen, and Kidan claimed Boulis was trying to kill him. (The Sun-Sentinel has a useful timeline of Boulis' life here.) Last Tuesday, three men were charged with the murder of Boulis, and on Wednesday a fourth person was indicted whom the three tried to hire to kill Boulis. What's particularly noteworthy is that two of the three charged were on the SunCruz payroll. Anthony "little Tony" Ferrari's company was paid $95,000 for security services, and Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello's company was paid $145,000 for catering and beverage services.


If Clinton had connections to guys like this, the Republicans would be all over him. But of course, there IS no longer an opposition party in this country, so everyone associated with Abramoff -- including Tom DeLay, will probably emerge unscathed.

*Sigh*
Bookmark and Share