"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, July 14, 2007

Conservative Eye for the Liberal Guy
Posted by Jill | 10:40 AM
OK, so it's dated and based on a defunct show that's destined to be mocked by Hal Starks and Ian Michael Black on "I Love the Oughts", but it's still funny:



Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Friday, July 13, 2007

Cold-hearted bastard
Posted by Jill | 2:14 PM
Not that it's a surprise, but I'm still capable of being amazed that anyone supports this sociopath. Yes, he actually did say this on Tuesday:

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.


After all, why should George W. Bush waste his beautiful mind on such things?

More:

I like the idea of people making decisions that are -- that will, one, enhance their health, and two, save money. The doc told me that -- we were looking at one of these brilliant heart guys working for him. You're not going to believe the technology in this hospital, by the way. If you're a Cleveland resident, you ought to be proud of this hospital. It's unbelievable. (Applause.)

He said something pretty wise, though. He said, you can have all the technology that man can conceivably create, but if you continue to smoke, we're going backwards. If you're not exercising, if you're not taking care of the body yourself, all the technology isn't going to save your life. In other words, there is a certain responsibility that we have as citizens to take care of ourselves. And a health savings account actually provides a financial incentive for you to do that.

I lost a family member to cancer in 2000. He was 75 years old. He didn't smoke, he ate moderately, was active, worked hard, took care of himself. And died of cancer. His two brothers, both significantly older, are still alive. Dana Reeve never smoked and died of lung cancer eleven days before her 45th birthday.

There are people who smoke who live to be 90. There are people who never smoke who die young. There are thin people who die young and fat people who live to a ripe old age.

And there are people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't have disposable income for "health saving accounts" to pay for care in an inflated-cost system. Bush is right that if you don't take at least some care of your body, medical technology is of limited use. But there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes taking care of any particular body. What I see coming out of Bush's Darwinian notions of the kind of health care we are entitled to expect is one in which smokers, anyone whose BMI is over 25, anyone who doesn't work out 25 hours a week, or any of a number of completely arbitrary and largely irrelevant "benchmarks" of "taking care of oneself" will be thrown into the health care garbage.

But hey. They have health care. They can always go to the emergency room.

(via Amanda)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Assuming there IS a "Global War on Terror", on whose side is George W. Bush fighting?
Posted by Jill | 1:06 PM
When Michael Chertoff said the other day that he had a "gut feeling" that the U.S. was at high risk of attack, and this week's threat assessment stating that al-Qaeda's operating strength was at a level not seen since prior to the 9/11 attacks, he opened the door to all of us who believe that the 9/11/01 attacks were permitted by this Administration to play out. If Al-Qaeda's operating strength is at a level not seen since then, then its strength WAS seen prior to the attacks -- and that implies that someone had advance knowledge that something was going to happen. But instead of action we had a president on vacation, a PDB in August ignored, and that same president sitting for seven minutes in a classroom after being told that the World Trade Center had been it.

After the attacks, we had the Bin Laden family spirited out of the country on planes chartered by the alleged mastermind behind the attacks, then we had said mastermind allowed to escape from Tora Bora and allowed to set up shop in Pakistan while this president started an unnecessary and unrelated war in Iraq. Then, it seems that George Bush called off a plan to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas for fear of jeopardizing U.S. relations with that country. Funny how the very same people who accuse Bill Clinton of "turning down Osama when presented on a silver platter" are silent about this.

As John Aravosis says:

Having the World Trade Center come down on 3000 people ticked off a lot of Americans, and the next time it happens Bush can explain to the families of the dead just why it was he was afraid of ticking off the Pakistanis.

Interestingly, this is the lie that Disney/ABC, along with their right-wing producer, tried to peddle about Madeleine Albright in Disney's fantasy film "The Path to 9/11." Remember how they claimed that Madeleine Albright wouldn't let us take out Osama because the Pakistanis might get upset? Never happened. But now we know that it DID happen under Bush's watch.

Bush and his military lapdogs keep telling us that Al Qaeda is the biggest threat we face in Iraq. It's totally untrue. But to the extent that the administration wants us to believe that Al Qaeda is the "big bad," we need to keep reminding them that the only reason Al Qaeda is still around is kicking is because George Bush gave them a pass.


So here's my question: Given these facts and the cozy relationship between the Bush and the Bin Laden families, just whose side is this president on?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

What's good for Halliburton and Blackwater and KBR and other big corporations is good for the troops
Posted by Jill | 8:25 AM
Or perhaps not:

A study completed in late June by the Pentagon's Inspector General concludes that the Department of Defense (DoD) has risked the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq due to malfeasance in awarding and monitoring contracts for badly-needed armored vehicles.

The study, which was requested by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, found that since 2000 the DoD has awarded "sole-source" contracts valued at $2.2 billion to just two companies, Force Protection, Inc.(FPI) and Armor Holdings, Inc (AHI).

Inspector General auditors found that the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) made these two companies the sole providers of armored vehicles and armor kits for troops, despite knowing that other suppliers may have produced the equipment so desperately needed in Iraq substantially faster. Both manufacturers fell far behind delivery schedules, while AHI also produced inadequate and faulty equipment.

"We determined the MCSC justification for awarding the sole-source contracts was questionable because MCSC officials knew that viable competition was available and were aware of significant concerns with FPI’s delivery capability," said the report about the MCSC's rationale for looking at no suppliers other than FPI. "In addition, Marine Corps officials did not pursue competition as contracts continued to be awarded, which raises concerns about the recurring justification for urgency."

"The Marine Corps Systems Command continued to award contracts for armored vehicles to Force Protection, Inc., even though Force Protection, Inc., did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting vehicles to the theater," the report continued.


I wonder if Americans have woken up yet and realize that the private sector does NOT alwayd do everything better than the public sector.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Even if these guys make it home, what kind of people will they be?
Posted by Jill | 8:20 AM
How can you expect your soldiers to come home and be husbands, fathers, sons, workers -- human beings -- when this is what you turn them into in Iraq?

Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.

[snip]

Sgt John Bruhns, 29, of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armoured Division, described a typical raid. "You want to catch them off guard," he explained. "You want to catch them in their sleep ... You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall... Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds. You'll ask 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda?'

"Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth," Sgt Bruhns said. "So you'll take his sofa cushions and dump them. You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it." And at the end, if the soldiers don't find anything, they depart with a "Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening".

Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."

'It would always happen. We always got the wrong house...'

"People would make jokes about it, even before we'd go into a raid, like, 'Oh fuck, we're gonna get the wrong house'. Cause it would always happen. We always got the wrong house."

Sergeant Jesus Bocanegra, 25, of Weslaco, Texas 4th Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour that began in March 2003

"I had to go tell this woman that her husband was actually dead. We gave her money, we gave her, like, 10 crates of water, we gave the kids, I remember, maybe it was soccer balls and toys. We just didn't really know what else to do."

Lieutenant Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia, Marine Corps civil affairs unit. In Ramadi from August 2004 to March 2005

"We were approaching this one house... and we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it... So I see this dog - I'm a huge animal lover... this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, what the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words."

Specialist Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade. In Kirkuk and Hawija on 11-month tour beginning November 2004

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."

Specialist Michael Harmon, 24, of Brooklyn, 167th Armour Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. In Al-Rashidiya on 13-month tour beginning in April 2003

"I open a bag and I'm trying to get bandages out and the guys in the guard tower are yelling at me, 'Get that fuck haji out of here,'... our doctor rolls up in an ambulance and from 30 to 40 meters away looks out and says, shakes his head and says, 'You know, he looks fine, he's gonna be all right,' and walks back... kind of like, 'Get your ass over here and drive me back up to the clinic'. So I'm standing there, and the whole time both this doctor and the guards are yelling at me, you know, to get rid of this guy."

Specialist Patrick Resta, 29, from Philadelphia, 252nd Armour, 1st Infantry Division. In Jalula for nine months beginning March 2004

'Every person opened fire on this kid, using the biggest weapons we could find...'

"Here's some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK47, decides he's going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you've ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds..."

Sergeant Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, 256th Infantry Brigade. In Abu Gharth for 11 months beginning November 2004

"Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement. Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat."

Lieutenant Brady Van Engelen, 26, of Washington DC, 1st Armoured Division. Eight-month tour of Baghdad beginning Sept 2003

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'... [Only when we got home] in... meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

Specialist Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry. In Baquba for a year beginning February 2004

"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."

Specialist Aidan Delgado, 25, of Sarasota, Florida, 320th Military Police Company. Deployed to Talil air base for one year beginning April 2003

"The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint... and probably didn't even see the soldiers... The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they [the bodies] literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them.

Sergeant Dustin Flatt, 33, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. One-year from February 2004

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population..."

Sergeant Camilo Mejía, 31, from Miami, National Guardsman, 1-124 Infantry Battalion, 53rd Infantry Brigade. Six-month tour beginning April 2003

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Sergeant Timothy John Westphal, 31, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour beginning February 2004

"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

Specialist Josh Middleton, 23, of New York City, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division. Four-month tour in Baghdad and Mosul beginning December 2004

"I felt like there was this enormous reduction in my compassion for people. The only thing that wound up mattering is myself and the guys that I was with, and everybody else be damned."


But impeach for lying us into this war? As The General says, "Wouldn't be prudent."

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Someone is very, very afraid of John Edwards
Posted by Jill | 7:07 AM
...and no, I don't think it's Hillary Clinton's people, not when she is polling 20 points ahead of him and all the polls show that Edwards beats ALL the Republican candidates in head-to-head contests.

But someone is trying to send John Edwards a message:

Authorities disarmed a suspicious package addressed to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday after the discovery of the package forced the evacuation of numerous businesses Thursday.

The incident marked the third time in recent months that authorities have responded to mail addressed to Edwards' office.

A FedEx envelope from out of state arrived in the mail at about 10 a.m. Thursday, and intermittent beeping could be heard from inside, police said.

Capt. Bob Overton of the Chapel Hill Police Department said he didn't know the contents of the package, but he said authorities deemed it suspicious.

The Durham County Sheriff's Office bomb squad was called in to assist in the investigation. Bomb squad members determined the package didn't pose a threat, but they used a high-powered water jet to disarm it.

"What they found were four watches that were beeping at about three-minute intervals," Interim Chapel Hill Police Chief Brian Curran said. "There was also some literature in there."

It was later determined that the package contained between two and four wristwatches and some literature, police said. The FBI planned to examine the literature as part of its investigation, authorities said.


This is another clue that contrary to the wishes of the denizens of Wingnuttia, this is not a Clinton Plot(®). "Literature" as part of a bomb threat is an earmark of Christofascist threats. This is now the third threat sent to Edwards' campaign headquarters.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

In Bush World, Al-Qaeda is strong in Iraq and not coming here
Posted by Jill | 6:11 AM
...which seems to be an exact inverse of what his own intelligence experts are saying:

Bush is trying to have it both ways. He wants to connect the Iraq insurgency to Al-Qaeda, both as a justification for the war and to keep Americans frightened without underscoring just how ineffective his Administration has been in combatting the threat to our shores:

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.”

But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them.

“The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses,” said Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official. “But I don’t think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation.”


And indeed, if the CIA is correct, his stubborn insistence that we are not in the middle of an Iraq civil war of our own creation, but instead are fighting "those who attacked us on 9/11" is going to blind him to the actual threat that does exist:

The intelligence report compiled by the National Counterterrorism Centre is believed to state that al-Qaeda is “showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States”. It adds that the network is “considerably operationally stronger than a year ago” and has “regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001”.

Fresh claims emerged yesterday that agents had been given two weeks to track down 700 people on an official FBI “worry list”. One group that they are known to be concerned about consists of radical British Muslims who may have made contact with al-Qaeda groups in Pakistan before travelling to the US on the visa-waiver programme.

Mr Chertoff said yesterday: “Something I’ve said repeatedly . . . is we have to watch Europe because the growth of home-grown terrorism over there creates a vulnerability for those who might use Europe as a platform into the United States.”

Intelligence analysts told Congress yesterday that al-Qaeda’s training activities, funding and communications have increased as the militant network has settled into new bases in remote areas of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda’s central command was “resurgent” in planning operations, John Kringen, head of the CIA’s intelligence directorate, said. “They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications.”

The White House is wary of over-emphasising the threat because that would undermine President Bush’s claim that “we’re winning – al-Qaeda is on the run”, when the US is having to admit only patchy progress in Iraq.


Playing the Al-Qaeda card doesn't play in Peoria the way it used to. Americans are no longer going to cower in their basements, wrapped in duct tape and plastic wrap the way they once would have been. This president has been the boy who cried wolf. Al-Qaeda has become a catchall bogeyman for all of Bush's political problems. His Administration has crept up behind the American public and startled them by shouting "Al-Qaeda" for six years now, and America isn't buying it anymore. Americans don't even care if Al-Qaeda HAS established a toehold in Iraq; because they know that this Administration hasn't got a clue how to fight back, and they know that it is our presence there fueling radical sentiment.

Whether they believe in a role for George Bush's psychosexual issues with his father as a reason for the war in the first place, they now know that it's about gaining control over the oil reserves. And even THAT is couched in terms of al-Qaeda, as he indicated last November:

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."


The bottom line is that this president, this Administration, hasn't got a clue what it's doing. Bush and Cheney are so blinded by greed and lust for power that they are once again going to allow an attack to take place on American soil while their attention is focused on Iraq. For six years we have been told that everything this Administration has done, from diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, to massive, illegal warrantless spying on Americans, to ridiculous whack-a-mole "techniques" at airports such as pulling aside grandmothers with hip replacements and confiscating sippy cups, has been done in the name of "keeping us safer." Americans now know that they are more less safe than ever. And more hated than ever. And that this country now no longer has the resources to help keep them safe, because the miitary is in Iraq and there is no money for anything that might work -- unless it enriches Halliburton.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, July 12, 2007

...and the only part of it Bush heard was "in the short term"
Posted by Jill | 7:03 AM
That's why he's committed to endless war in Iraq:

Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a "Churchillian" vision of "victory" in Iraq and defend the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. "A constitutional order is emerging," he said.

Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said "the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible," adding that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

"The government is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function."

Later in the interview, he qualified the statement somewhat: "A government that can govern, sustain and defend itself is not achievable," he said, "in the short term."

Hayden's bleak assessment, which came just a week after Republicans had lost control of Congress and Bush had dismissed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was a pivotal moment in the study group's intensive examination of the Iraq war, and it helped shape its conclusion in its final report that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating."

In the eight months since the interview, neither Hayden nor any other high-ranking administration official has publicly described the Iraqi government in the uniformly negative terms that the CIA director used in his closed-door briefing.


This is what happens when you put a delusional, messianic lunatic in the White House. This president was told last November that the so-called Iraqi government was just not up to the task of stabilizing the country -- and has continued to feed American soldiers into the meatgrinder, and plans to continue to feed them into the meatgrinder until he leaves office.

Every Senator and Congressman who has refused to hold this Administration accountable -- every Democrat who has whined "We don't have the votes" and every Republican who has talked the talk and then voted to continue this madness -- every last one of them should be booted out of office in the next election. These men and women are committing murder -- not just the murder of Iraqis, but the murder of our own soldiers -- by continuing to send them into a cause that they know full well is lost. Not one American soldier should have to give his or her life so that a politician can keep his cushy office on Capitol Hill.

The crime of Iraq is primarily on the shoulders of George Bush and Dick Cheney, but every time the Democrats in the House and Senate refuse to meaningfully confront this president -- with articles of impeachment if necessary -- to end this ear, they shoulder ever more of the blame for every death in Iraq.

And if we don't hold their feet to the fire, so do we.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Terror Nation
Posted by Jill | 6:38 AM
CNN is reporting that a plane bound for London landed at JFK Airport this morning and a business class passenger was detained. The report is that a flight attendant saw this passenger on an employees-only van and reported his presence in business class as suspicious, resulting in the diversion. Nothing from the news web sites yet and I just didn't want to sit and listen to Michael Chertoff.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting today just how easy it is to get one's hands on materials for a dirty bomb -- not in Russia, not in Iran, but right here in the good old USA:


Undercover Congressional investigators set up a bogus company and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March that would have allowed them to buy the radioactive materials needed for a so-called dirty bomb.

The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, demonstrated once again that the security measures put in place since the 2001 terrorist attacks to prevent radioactive materials from getting into the wrong hands are insufficient, according to a G.A.O. report, which is scheduled to be released at a Senate hearing Thursday.

“Given that terrorists have expressed an interest in obtaining nuclear material, the Congress and the American people expect licensing programs for these materials to be secure,” said Gregory D. Kutz, an investigator at the accountability office, in testimony prepared for the hearing.

The bomb the investigators could have built would not have caused widespread damage or even high- level contamination. But it still could have had serious consequences, particularly economic ones, in any city where it was set off.

The undercover operation involved an application from a fake construction company, supposedly based in West Virginia, that the investigators had incorporated even though it had no offices, Internet site or employees. Its only asset was a postal box.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials did not visit the company or try to interview its executives in person. Instead, within 28 days, they mailed the license to the West Virginia postal box, the report says.

That license, on a standard-size piece of paper, also had so few security measures incorporated into it that the investigators, using commercially available equipment, were able to modify it easily, removing a limit on the amount of radioactive material they could buy, the report says.

With that forged document, the auditors approached two industrial equipment companies to arrange to buy dozens of portable moisture density gauges, which cost about $5,000 each and are used to read the density of soil and pavement when building highways. The machines include americium-241 and cesium-137, radioactive substances commonly used in industrial equipment. Auditors, convinced they had enough evidence to prove their point, called off the ruse before the devices were delivered.

But if they had gone ahead with the plot — which would have required extracting the radioactive materials from the machines and combining them, a job that could harm anyone in close contact — they could have built a bomb that would have contaminated an area about the length of a city block, according to the regulatory commission.


Yes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will send you a license for nuclear material -- to a postal box. No confirmation or background check necessary.

Aren't you glad that six years after 9/11, George W. Bush is on the case? /snark

UPDATE: Now CNN is reporting that the man in question is an executive platinum traveler with the airline who boarded the employee shuttle:

According to Russ Knocke, with the Department of Homeland Security, American Airlines security officials identified the man as an executive platinum traveler with the airline who purchased his round-trip ticket on April 19.

Knocke did not say whether the man had proper identification when he boarded the employee shuttle and passed through the employee access-only entrance.

Anthony Loynes, one of the 188 passengers aboard the flight, told CNN the pilot told passengers the plane was making the unannounced stop because the plane did not have enough fuel to make it to London.

Shortly after landing, Loynes said, security officials boarded the plane and left with a man of "Middle Eastern descent." A woman sitting next to the man was also questioned, he added.


UPDATE: CNN TV is now discussing the incident as "a misunderstanding", which somewhat contradicts the Annie Jacobsen-like ominous tone of the above article on the network's web site.

AND ANOTHER UPDATE: 1010 WINS is saying now that the man in question is, in fact, an employee of the airline.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The First Church of Winner Take All
Posted by Jill | 6:09 AM
George W. Bush may have the insane delusion that God talks through him, but the religion of Dick Cheney, the architect of Absolute Executive Power, with Tony Scalia as his Cromwell, is something just a wee bit different, as pointed out by Nick Benton of the Falls Church News-Press (via E. Pluribus Media):

At the top, these people have a total overhaul of U.S. Constitutional government in mind. Bush and friends are the first administration that has achieved a level of power high enough to exhibit this. Their goal is the end of democracy as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

They came into office on the shoulders of the same forces, led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and those under his sway on that bench who installed Bush as the president in December 2000.

Appropriately, it is a movement steeped in religious convictions, as religion is a domain that needs no respect for the secular U.S. Constitution.

In Scalia’s case, many, including myself, attending a dinner honoring a retiring George Mason University law professor in Arlington in January 2003, were shocked to hear him couch in Jesuit-steeped legaleze the core substance of his notion of law.

In so many words, he said the law is defined by who wins. If you win, you get to decide what is legal and what isn’t.

It’s a variant on “might makes right” and other tenants of “social Darwinism,” the ideology which, when unbridled in political practice, leads to all varieties of tyranny.

Since that night, I’ve been dismayed by the notion that such an ideology would be operative on the U.S. Supreme Court. That court is assigned with preserving the notion that U.S. law, and its defense of equal justice and democratic institutions, is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, not the most recent thug elected to a high place.

It has not been until Bush’s two most recent appointments to the Supreme Court that Scalia’s viewpoint has appeared to obtain the majority there.

In President Bush’s case, he comes from of a particularly unsavory ultra right-wing Protestant religious influence that combines its influence on controlling his self-destructive personal habits with its claims that God’s law supercedes man’s laws and that the true believer must be obedient to the former.

The likes of Dick Cheney and others, of course, don’t require the religious trappings on this notion. For them, Scalia is sufficient: You win, you rule.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Tucker Carlson is not entitled to a megaphone
Posted by Jill | 6:00 AM
Tucker Carlson is trying to give Bill-O a run for his money. It's time for MSNBC viewers to stop giving this guy a mouthpiece -- not because he's supposedly a conservative and disagrees with the policy plans of the Democratic candidates, but because personal smears are the province of vipers like Ann Coulter. Just because CNN has decided to give Glenn Beck an hour to spew bile every night doesn't make it an entitlement. Carlson's right to say whatever he wants about Barack Obama does not include a guaranteed hour every night to call Barack Obama a pothead:

Tucker Carlson has a long history of using his MSNBC show, Tucker, to lob smears against progressive presidential candidates. But in recent months, he has directed a truly bizarre level of personal vitriol toward Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).


Whether he's trashing Sen. Obama as "sound[ing] like a pothead" or "seem[ing] like kind of a wuss," one thing is clear: Tucker Carlson has abused his position as a media personality to personally attack Barack Obama.


Carlson may have a problem with Sen. Obama, but we all know that the real problem is with Tucker Carlson and his propensity for peddling smears and misinformation about progressives. My friend, the time has come to take a stand.


Today, I am asking you to contact MSNBC and Tucker Carlson and demand that they stop the smears on Sen. Obama.


Here are just a few examples of the puerile and ridiculous attacks that Tucker Carlson has directed at Sen. Obama over the past few months:



  • On the July 10 edition of Tucker, Carlson described Sen. Obama's "rhetoric" as "kind of wimpy." (read more ...)

  • While discussing Sen. Obama's speech in Fairfield, Iowa, on the July 6 edition of Tucker, Carlson asked: "How high is this guy? It's like, what is he -- he always talks between bong hits?" Carlson added: "Well, he sounds like a pothead to me." (read more ... )

  • On the July 2 edition of Tucker, Carlson said of Sen. Obama, "He seems like kind of a wuss." (read more ... )

  • During the "Obameter" segment on the February 7 edition of Tucker, Carlson criticized Sen. Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and religious beliefs, stating, "[T]his stuff sounds separatist to me" and it "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity." Carlson also claimed that the church's theology is "racially exclusive" and "wrong," adding that "it's hard to call that Christianity." (read more ... )

We all know that Carlson dropped the ball on responsible journalism a long time ago. But his bizarre obsession with Sen. Obama has reached a new low, even for Tucker.


There is simply no place for these juvenile attacks to be broadcast every evening on America's cable news channels. As Americans, we have a right to both expect and demand more from our news outlets. The public deserves a productive debate about ideas and policies, not program after program of Tucker filled with relentless personal attacks, smears, and falsehoods.


That is why I'm urging you today to contact MSNBC and Tucker Carlson and tell them the smears must stop.




If Tucker has a beef with Obama, or anyone else on a particular issue, let him invite that person onto his show and debate it. But emulating Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck is just pathetic.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

There are only 3 days left....
Posted by Jill | 5:27 AM
...to let the FCC know why you oppose the Federal Trade Commission's plan to let internet service providers charge sites for access and determine what you can and cannot find on the internet.

Tell your story about what the internet has done for you here.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Your Democratic Senate
Posted by Jill | 10:09 PM
Bookmark and Share

Here are your high crimes and misdemeanors
Posted by Jill | 9:40 PM
Josh Marshall tells us why George Bush giving the order for Harriet Miers to not testify tomorrow is a felony.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

So what the hell has this Administration been doing for six years?
Posted by Jill | 9:29 PM
For six years we've been told that only this Administration takes the threat of terrorism seriously. For six years we've been told that only Republicans can keep us safe. For six years we've been told that we need to allow the government to listen to our phone calls and track our internet comings and goings in order to keep us safe. For four years we've been told that the Iraq War is the central front of the Global War on Terror.

Six years. Billions of dollars. The wholesale evisceration of our civil liberties. Over 3500 soldiers dead in Iraq and more in Afghanistan. And what do George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have to show for it?

The Return of Al Qaeda

A new National Intelligence Estimate presents a sobering analysis of terrorism threats to the United States, concluding that Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure along the Pakistani border and may now be a stronger and more resilient organization today than it appeared a year ago, according to three U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the draft document.

In fact, the activities of Al Qaeda’s leadership along the Afghan-Pakistani border are only one component of an overall threat environment that is worrying officials both in the United States and Europe. The stepped-up movement of suspected Islamic militants between Iraq and Europe has proven so troubling that the German government recently set up a special interagency team to track the flow of suspected jihadi recruits to and from that worn-torn country, two German sources told NEWSWEEK.

[snip]

The NIE reflects the consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies and is prepared by the National Intelligence Council. A version of the new report, due to be released later this summer, is especially striking because it contrasts in some respects with previous analyses by the U.S. intelligence community. An NIE on “Trends in Global Terrorism”—portions of which were declassified last September—concluded that U.S. counterterrorism efforts “have seriously damaged the leadership of Al Qaeda and disrupted its operations.”

At the same time, however, last year’s NIE also warned that Al Qaeda had spawned a jihadi movement that had metastasized, and that radical jihadis were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” One cause, the analysis concluded, was the U.S. invasion of Iraq—which intelligence officials said had become a “cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihaidst movement.”

But the new NIE’s conclusions about Al Qaeda activities in Pakistan, along with the increasing signs of jihadi militants flowing out of Iraq, suggest that the U.S. counterterrorism community may now be facing the worst of both worlds: a reconstituted Al Qaeda leadership coupled with a growing and dispersed worldwide army of angry jihadis inflamed by the U.S. presence in Iraq. The new document’s conclusions also could make it more difficult for the White House to argue, as it frequently has in the past, that President Bush’s post-9/11 efforts have made the country “safer.”


One of two things is happening: Either this Administration, in the serious trouble its in, is cynically ratcheting up the fear card beyond all reason as a distraction in the hope that once again, Americans will respond and not ask the question I ask in the title of this post, or else the Bush/Cheney junta has botched their handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks so completely -- perhaps deliberately -- that they have squandered six years, thousands of lives, and countless dollars, all in vain, and the result is that the enemy they claim to fight has only become stronger as a result of their actions.

Either way, it is reprehensible.

(Jon Swift puts it all into perspective for us.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Viral this, bitchez!
Posted by Jill | 9:16 PM
Chris Cilizza was on Countdown tonight discussing this video:





He says it's impossible to tell what the impact will be on Rudy Giuliani's campaign, that sometimes these videos "go viral" and sometimes they fizzle out.

Let's make sure this one goes viral, shall we? Rudy Giuliani is trying to gain the White House by standing atop the corpses of the very same firefighters he's so shamelessly exploiting now -- men whose remains are still around Ground Zero. Giuliani was a reassuring presence on 9/11 because the President of the United States was making poopy in his pants in a Florida classroom. But one day does not a president make, and it does not erase Giuliani's utter ineptitude in addressing threats to the World Trade Center in the years between the first and second attacks

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Channelling Steve Gilliard
Posted by Jill | 7:44 PM
If you, like me, made a point every day of seeing what Steve Gilliard had to say, go read Lower Manhattanite's post on John McCain's Dead Man Walking campaign. It'll give you chills -- as if it were all just a bad dream and Steve and Jen had just changed their blog colors. It's channelling, I tell ya.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Sic[ko] 'im, boy! -- the Sequel
Posted by Jill | 7:00 AM
A slightly more subdued but no less pointed Michael Moore continues his match with Wolf Blitzer:





Be sure to watch the whole thing so as not to miss the zinger Moore tosses at Wolfie at the very end.

Funny how all the Democratic candidates are doing whatever they can to AVOID mention of Moore's film, when it COULD be the best way to win hearts and minds on national health care.

Moore has had a busy couple of days, also appearing on Larry King last night:








Here's a webchat in which he participated at HuffPo after the show. Money quote, and it's not even from Moore, it's from "Steve in Los Angeles":

"[Gupta's] comment that in countries with free health care there is a long wait-time to see a doctor and it takes months to schedule elective surgery is laughable. That's like telling a starving person "don't bother with the free food, there's a line to get in and service is just awful."


What the hoopla over Moore's film ought to bring into the public consciousness is this fact: health care cannot be delivered via a for-profit insurance model. Publicly-held insurance companies are about financial performance for investors, not about providing health care.

Insurance is the biggest business scam being conducted above ground. Homeowners affected by hurricanes find thsmselves being unable to collect claims from their homeowners policies because the insurance companies insist the damage is from flooding. Government flood insurance won't pay because the providers insist the damage is from wind. You don't even have to file a claim to be penalized. Simply asking if something is covered qualifies as an "unpaid loss." New Jersey residents know full well how valuable auto insurance is -- one ticket and you're penalized for five full years.

But when you look at the huge profits and executive compensation among health insurers, their business plan revolving around denying care and giving customers the biggest possible runaround in the hope that they'll give up, is the worst possible indictment of the capitalist system. Former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire is eligible for a lump sum of $91.3 million in retirement benefits while the company he headed denied more claims than five other insurers, with only Aetna having a worse performance. Omnicare's CEO Joel Gemunder had nearly $61 million in accumulated pension benefits as of the company's most recent proxy filing. The company HE headed paid $49.5 million to settle charges it illegally switched the drugs of patients in nursing homes.

And let's look at Wellpoint Chief Financial Officer David Colby while we're at it, shall we? In 2002, Colby's total compensation was $4,253,859. This is what Wellpoint was paying for:


Sarah Waugh, who worked for WellPoint when it was called WellPoint Health Networks Inc. and headquartered in Thousand Oaks, says in the suit that while Colby was the company's chief financial officer, he maintained "concurrent relationships" with her and more than 15 other women and "acted with the intent to cause" her harm.

Waugh seeks unspecified damages for "humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress." WellPoint, her suit suggests, was aware of Colby's alleged romantic entanglements but did nothing to protect her.

Colby, 53, was let go May 30 for what the company, now based in Indianapolis, called nonbusiness-related violations of its code of conduct.

A lawyer for Colby didn't return phone calls. A WellPoint spokesman declined to comment on the suit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

In the suit, Waugh, 29, says she began dating Colby in 2001, when she worked for WellPoint. Their relationship continued after she left the company, the suit says, and Colby sent her an "almost constant stream of e-mails and text messages, and repeatedly professed his desire for unprotected sex in a committed monogamous relationship."

He wasn't faithful, the suit claims, and engaged in "high-risk sexual practices with others … some of whom have contracted STDs" — sexually transmitted diseases. WellPoint "facilitated defendant Colby's lifestyle," the suit says, with company employees arranging personal and business trips for Waugh and other women who traveled with Colby — including her younger sister, Jessica — and with high-level employees often traveling with Colby and the women.

At the same time, the suit says, WellPoint "benefited from the outward appearance of respectability and propriety of their CFO."

A Wall Street favorite, Colby was widely credited with the financial success of the healthcare giant. He earned a salary of $740,000. Two months before his ouster, the board gave him the title of vice chairman and stock options then worth $1.7 million. Since June 15, he has sold more than $100 million worth of WellPoint stock, the suit claims.

Days before the board asked Colby to resign, Rita DiCarlo, a registered nurse who has lived in his Lake Sherwood home for more than two years, sued him, alleging that he had reneged on a promise to give her the $4.4-million property. Like Waugh and several other women, DiCarlo claimed that Colby promised to marry her.

DiCarlo and Waugh are represented by the same Los Angeles lawyer, Mark Hathaway, and have sold the rights to their stories to producer Larry Garrison, president of SilverCreek Entertainment.

Colby is separated from his second wife, Karenn, who filed for divorce in 2004.

Waugh's suit alleges that Colby has said the board confronted him about his relationships in August 2006. The company has declined to say whether the board met in August for any reason. In announcing Colby's resignation, WellPoint Chairman Larry Glasscock said concerns about his behavior had come to light only "in recent days."

According to Waugh, she was fired by WellPoint after she made complaints, which are not detailed in the suit, about Colby. Colby then began making unspecified monthly support payments to her, and, on one occasion, gave her $12,000, the suit claims. When Waugh attempted to break off the relationship at one point, it says, Colby spray-painted her car and later paid her $2,000 for repairs.

Colby allegedly allowed Waugh to live in his Lake Sherwood home for a while and took her on trips to WellPoint functions arranged by company employees. The suit says Colby repeatedly promised to pay for private schooling for Waugh's son and to continue to support her even if their relationship ended. It alleges that he reneged by stopping the payments when the relationship recently ended.

The suit describes how Colby allegedly met women on Internet dating sites and in chat rooms. On Match.com, the suit says, he described himself as a divorced "GolfingCFO," seeking a "unique woman who is warm and affectionate when I am home but who is independent enough not to be upset when I work long hours or have to travel." Because of his job, the woman would have to be "comfortable at both Black-tie galas and employee picnics on the beach."

Colby pointed prospective dates to WellPoint's website and online information describing his "status as a well-respected and successful corporate executive," the suit says.


"Choice" among two or three or five insurers all of whom work to deny rather than provide care while shoveling cash and stock options into the pockets of its top executives, is no choice at all. The entire insurance system is rigged -- rigged against those who buy insurance thinking they are getting protection, and in the case of health insurance, thinking they are getting coverage for procedures and illnesses. Cities arrest three-card-monte dealers for scamming the public. Our politicians take hush money from insurance companies in a quid pro quo to keep the current system going as is. And the public gets screwed.

(h/t: Melina)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Note to Congress: If you can't find the stones to impeach Bush or Cheney, how about this guy?
Posted by Jill | 6:13 AM
Perhaps you need something akin to training wheels or wine coolers or those inflatable plastic wings people put on their children when teaching them to swim -- someone you can impeach who isn't Big and Scary like the Towel-Snapper-in Chief and Lord Voldemort.

Like this guy:

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.


Two Justice Department officials say that Gonzo was kept very well informed of FBI civil liberties violations:


The two officials spoke in a telephone call arranged by press officials at the Justice Department after The Washington Post disclosed yesterday that the FBI sent reports to Gonzales of legal and procedural violations shortly before he told senators in April 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001.

"I have discussed and informed attorneys general, including this one, about mistakes the FBI has made or problems or violations or compliance incidents, however you want to refer to them," said James A. Baker, a career official who heads the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.

"I've discussed a number of times oversight concerns and, underlying those oversight concerns, the potential for violations. And I'm sure we've discussed violations that have occurred in the past," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein.


So HOW many times has Gonzo lied to Congress now? Why are they putting up with this crap?

Jerrold Nadler calls for a special counsel:

"Providing false, misleading or inaccurate statements to Congress is a serious crime, and the man who may have committed those acts cannot be trusted to investigate himself."


Patrick Leahy is "deeply disturbed" over revelations that Gonzales lied to Congress back in April:

uote>"...it is only through dogged oversight or Freedom of Information Act lawsuits — such as the one that revealed these inconsistent statements — that Congress and the American people learn the truth about this administration’s activities,"


There's an awful lot of gum-flapping and righteous indignation in Congress every time Alberto Gonzales goes up to Capitol Hill and lies through his teeth -- and yet they do nothing except continue to show up on talk shows and express their shock that a Government Official Could Lie Exclamation Point.

Time to put your money where your mouths are, guys.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Right on cue (Are those my cues? Yes, and they must be dry by now)
Posted by Jill | 6:00 AM
Once again, the White House is in deep trouble over Iraq, with U.S. News and World Report saying:

Administration officials yesterday denied President Bush was considering a "gradual" pullout from Iraq in light of plummeting GOP support for his policies, as the New York Times had reported in Monday's edition. The AP reports the White House said Bush "is not considering a withdrawal of US forces," and the Financial Times calls the White House's message "defiant" in the face of "intensifying bipartisan pressure." The Los Angeles Times also says "the White House brushed off calls from a growing chorus of Republican lawmakers to change course in the conflict," while McClatchy runs a similar report under the headline "Bush Stays Course, Rebuffs Demand For Change."


Yet ABC World News said White House officials "are extremely worried." White House spokesman Tony Snow "will not say that on camera," but one White House official told ABC, "We are in panic mode." The CBS Evening News reported, "Senior Pentagon officials tell CBS News a debate is under way to determine what conditions must exist short of victory to begin pulling troops out of Iraq. The White House publicly denies this, but clearly political support is weakening inside the Administration."



So with support for Bush's penis-enlarging war in Iraq dwindling to only the most deluded lunatics of his base, what's a president to do?

Why, do what's worked before, that's what -- play the fear card:

Senior U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here.

The White House has convened an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday afternoon to deal with the new threat.

[snip]

"World News" closer between Charles Gibson and Brian Ross:

Charles Gibson: The obvious question, Brian, is how hard and how specific is the intelligence?

Brian Ross: Not hard, but good. It's being taken very seriously, in connection with increased chatter, e-mail traffic back and forth, the attacks in London, and a general concern, as Secretary Chertoff said today, that summer seems to be a time that al Qaeda likes to attack.

Charles Gibson: And there's been a bunch of tapes that have been coming from al Qaeda lately.

Brian Ross: In fact, Zawahri put out his eighth tape today and says he had easy access to the Internet, and he threatened new attacks against London.

Charles Gibson: Once was the day when this intelligence came in, they would raise the level of concern going to a different color.

Brian Ross: The concern, now, by doing that and not telling Americans what they can do, where the attack is coming, serves no useful purpose.


Especially when that might indicate something like a PLAN to deal with a terrorist attack -- if in fact one is in the offing.

Let's go back and consult our man Keith Olbermann on just how handily these threats have always comeon the heels of political trouble for this president, shall we?






The more we examine how this Administration has handled these so-called threats, and as we look at this Administration's history, going back to prior to 9/11, when his administration was already damaged by the U.S. spy plane captured in China, a U.S. Navy Submarine being operated by Bush cronies and campaign contributors ramming and sinking a Japanese fishing vessel, and general ineptitude and corruption already clearly visible, this report should make us very, very afraid -- not because terrorist cells may be here or on their way here, but because history has shown us that when this President is briefed about an impending attack, he does nothing -- it is allowed to play out, as the 9/11 attacks were allowed to play out -- if it means political advantage to George W. Bush.

This president desperately needs vindication. His war has proven to be perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. He has destabilized the entire Middle East in his ridiculous quest to prove something to his father. His approval ratings are at Nixonian levels. He needs something to happen, and he needs it quickly. Why NOT let a terrorist attack play out? It worked for him last time.

On July 26, 2001, Dana Milbank reported in the Washington Post:

It may be premature to conclude that Bush has lost control of his agenda, but lawmakers and strategists in both parties said that Bush's next year is much more likely to look like the fractious month of July than like the orderly march toward Bush's tax cut this spring.

The troubles began, of course, with Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords's departure from the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. But the problems are nearly as bad in the House, where moderates who supported Bush's tax cut are proving recalcitrant on other issues. They rebelled against GOP leaders on campaign finance reform and held up Bush's "faith-based" legislation over concerns about discrimination. Next week, they're likely to oppose Bush's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Siding with Bush "was easy when we were on fiscal issues," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), a moderate. But things have changed as the debate moves toward non-tax issues. "I represent the people in Minnesota, and Minnesota's not Texas," Ramstad said. "That's why coalitions have to be built on some of these nonfiscal issues, like managed-care reform." Embryonic stem cell research is another issue that promises to cause Bush problems on the Hill, where yesterday Bush adviser Karl Rove was grilled on the subject by Ramstad during a meeting with a group of moderate House Republicans.

Bush's options for reclaiming the agenda are not good.

He can't make Trumanesque claims about a do-nothing Congress, because half the place is controlled by Republicans. Bush can't persuasively attack the Democratic Senate when the Republican House is causing him nearly as much grief. Alternatively, Bush could try to use the bully pulpit to rally the public to pressure Congress into action. But polls indicate that Americans are content, even complacent, at the moment and unlikely to be stirred to anger. "There's not demand on the part of the public for anything right now," GOP pollster Frank Luntz said.

[snip]

As he leaves for Texas for the month of August, the president has two options, neither one entirely attractive: fight for his agenda and risk gridlock; or acquiesce to moderates, passing laws but surrendering many of his key priorities.

[snip]

Pollster John Zogby argues that such unyielding tactics by Bush will lose their effectiveness even further in the fall as members of Congress start thinking about their 2002 reelection bids. "His first six months have been strange in that he's been a very conservative president," Zogby said. "That doesn't build a governing majority. If he continues what he's been doing, he loses ground."


Less than two months later, four planes would be hijacked, the Twin Towers would be destroyed and the Pentagon damaged, and this presidency that was over before it began would be resurrected like Dracula out of a moldy, filthy coffin.

So as you hear Michael Chertoff over the next 48 hours opine that it's such a nice day for a terrorist attack because terrorists like to attack during the summer months, watch Olbermann's reports again. Think about the trouble Bush is in. Think of the trouble he was already in during the summer of 2001. Then remind yourself that there are many ways to be a terrorist. The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." That this Administration has already a) made up threats that don't exist, and b) exaggerated threats that aren't significant, well, 2 + 2 = 4.

And the next time your wingnut friends tell you that George W. Bush's war in Iraq has made us safer and that's why we need to elect a tough guy like Rudy Giuliani, ask them about Chertoff's statement yesterday that "We could easily be attacked. The intent to attack us remains as strong as it was on Sept. 10, 2001." If Bush has been so effective in deflecting terrorism due to the Iraq War, why can we, six years later, still be so easily be attacked?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

What's he hiding?
Posted by Jill | 8:05 AM
What does George W. Bush, dry drunk, have in that paper bag out of which he's drinking?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

It is time for Cindy Sheehan to get some grief counseling
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
I am a great admirer of what Cindy Sheehan has done to draw the nation's attention to what is happening in Iraq, and to the nature of the man who leads this country. The establishment of Camp Casey, and Sheehan's pledge to sit out there in the Texas heat until George W. Bush would tell her what the noble cause for which her son died was the kind of protest demonstration that gives the term a good name. Quiet, effective, poignant, the image of the unglamorous mom grieving for her war-lost son drove home to oblivious Americans the cost of this war in a way nothing else has. The candlelight vigils, the symbolic cemetery containing crosses for each soldier to be killed is a far greater testament to what we have lost than all of Bush's photo-ops with soldiers. It was lovely, heartfelt, and moving.

But then Cindy Sheeham the mom, the protester, succumbed to the siren song of the A.N.S.W.E.R. left and allowed them to co-opt her message and her purpose. I have no beef with Sheehan's meeting with Hugo Chavez, because I have no beef with Hugo Chavez. But at a time when she was making real headway in changing America's hearts and minds about this war, it probably wasn't the most productive move she could make. Then there is the question of whether she claimed her son died for Israel. She says she did not. So does Rabbi Arthur Waskow. There is no documentation that she did other than claims by the usual suspects (such as Christopher Hitchens, David Duke (to whom I will not link, but it's on the first page of Google results, Newsmax, the right-wing New York Sun, and Frontpage. But it doesn't matter -- the meme found its way into America's consciousness and turned Cindy Sheehan into a symbol of the "kook left."

When Sheehan announced in May that she was tired of being the right's favorite punching bag and going home, I cheered her decision. Because the point of her tribute to her son had been lost -- some of it her own inadvertent doing due to her inexperience as an activist, much of it not. Whatever her mistakes may have been, the way Sheehan has been treated by the right is reprehensible, and part of a campaign of smears and lies that seems to be directed at only women who dare to speak out against this Administration. Kristen Breitweiser, a Republican voter whose husband died in the World Trade Center, has been another target of the right wing lie machine for daring to ask the necessary questions.

Yet by now it wasn't just the right that was using Sheehan as its favorite punching bag. In this heartbreaking diary she wrote at Daily Kos, she decries those on the left who had branded her an "attention whore." This diary encapsulates everything that has been wrong with the very activist left into whose embrace she fell. It's impossible to read this diary and not recognize someone who not only has realized that she's been used as a tool by some of the most counterproductive elements of the antiwar movement, but whose emotional state has gone completely off the rails. I recognize it because I've been there more than once, albeit for different reason. When the emotional train derails, there are a lot of boxcars lying willy-nilly across the countryside of the mind, and there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done.

“I’m going home for awhile to try and be normal,” she said then, which struck me as a healthy, healing thing to do. None of us who haven't experienced the loss of a child can understand what she has felt over these years. But a friend of mine lost a child just about Casey Sheehan's age last year -- not in war, but just as senseless. And the biggest dilemma I've seen in her is the conflict between the human need to be normal again and the idea that to close up the gaping wound in a family that the death of a child leaves is to somehow erase that child's existence. Coping with this kind of loss was described by someone else I know as "finding a place for it." You don't get over it, you find a place for it; a room in your mind that you visit occasionally but that you are no longer able to visit every day.

For the last few years, "finding a place" for Casey Sheehan in his mother's life has been directed towards ending the war that killed him -- at a great personal cost to that mother. It hasn't worked. Because of her position as lightning rod for both the pro- and anti-war sides, she hasn't been able to do the work necessary to find that place, particularly as the war has dragged on and more Caseys have died for nothing.

It seems clear that Cindy Sheehan has been unable to just go home and be normal for a while; to find that room in which to put Casey and visit him occasionally. Yesterday the news came out that she plans to run for Congress against Nancy Pelosi if the latter doesn't put impeachment back on the table:


I was going to announce on July 10 (my 50th birthday) before our Journey for Humanity that I would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she didn't put impeachment back on the table before our tour reached DC on July 23. Impeachment was never hers to take off the table as it is a Constitutional remedy for BushCo, not an optional smorgasbord choice. However, the story was leaked to the AP and we couldn't keep the big announcement under wraps.

The feedback I have received since then has been about 3 to 1 positive and supportive. Some people have offered to quit their jobs to move to California's 8th to help my possible campaign. People are lining up to donate and help and I am again very grateful and touched beyond belief by the generosity and energy of my fellow Americans.

I truly understand the not so supportive people, though, because I have been in their shoes. Here in the USA, most of us put our faith in a two-party system that has failed peace and justice consistently and repeatedly. The Republicans do not have a monopoly on the culture of corruption (although BushCo have elevated it to policy status) and the way we do politics in this country needs a serious shake up when all that we the people get is a shakedown. I was frightened out of ever voting for a third party, or independent candidate, but voting out of fear is one of the things that bestowed the Bush Crime Mob upon us and may give us the Republican in actuality, if not in name, Hillary Clinton.

I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats.

Don’t tell me the Democrats are our "saviors" because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a meltdown of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people, not the politicians.

I have nothing personally against Nancy and have found our previous interactions very pleasant -- but being "against" the occupation of Iraq means ending it by ending the funding and preventing future illegal wars of aggression by holding BushCo accountable. Words have to be backed up by action and if they aren’t, they are as empty as Cheney’s conscience.


That Sheehan is right is beside the point. While I'm as disgusted by the "Can't win, don't try" attitude of House Democrats in regard to holding this Administration accountable for its crimes against the Constitution as Sheehan is, the fact of the matter is that "I'm going home....no I'm not" is chipping away at Sheehan's credibility. I 100% agree with Sheehan's message here, but at this point it is right message, wrong messenger.

I do not oppose for one minute Sheehan's drive to effect change in Congress, because we sorely need it. But at this point in time, she is just not equipped to do so. It's clear that going home to the still-festering wound in her family hasn't helped her to be normal for a while, but she is going to have to find a way to get that wound to heal. Activism just isn't doing it.

It's time for Cindy Sheehan to come to terms with this loss. Not to accept it, not even to forgive the man who sent her son to war. But she must find that place for Casey's memory and learn how to just visit it now and then -- and get on with her own life. If she can do that, then she will be far better equipped to enter the system she's fought so hard and be a real force for change.

UPDATE: Lynn has more.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Another "Clean Slate Christian" conservative hypocrite
Posted by Jill | 6:06 AM
I know I keep harping on the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives, and it often comes across as if I'm bashing Christians and Christianity. On the contrary, I'm very live and let live about religion -- with an emphasis on "let live", and that's the main reason I so ardently oppose the attempts of the so-called Christian Right to impose some twisted version of so-called Christianity on the entire country. If people need to believe in a punitive authority figure in the sky to keep them on the straight-and-narrow, or even if they need to believe in some kind of eternal life to compensate for the shit that happens to them in this one, who am I to take away whatever it may take to get them through the day? But recognize faith for what it is -- just that -- faith -- and not Absolute Truth to be Codified in Law.

It seems that those crying loudest about the decline of morality are the ones who can't seem to keep themselves on the same moral path they would impose on others. While my own spiritual beliefs tend to be a hodgepodge of various pagan and Eastern traditions, the fact that I don't believe in a Great White Alpha Male in the Sky Micromanaging People's Lives hasn't kept me from what I think is a relatively virtuous life. I've never cheated on my husband. I pay my taxes. If there's something wedged in my shopping cart when I get out to the parking lot that neither I nor the cashier saw, I take it back into the store and pay for it. I give to charity. I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car and try to leave as small a footprint on the earth as possible.

It's not that I'm without fault; I'm quick-tempered, do not suffer fools gladly, and yes, I sometimes Carry Hate in my Heart. As do those who would set themselves up as my moral superior. But you'd never see me embezzling money, or taking bribes, or patronizing prostitutes, or trying to divorce a sick spouse and run off with the pool boy, or any of the other capers that the biggest mouthpieces of the so-called moralists in our political life have been known to do.

Why is it that some people can walk the walk, and other people can't even resist temptation when they surround themselves with this elaborate belief system providing for punishment for those who transgress? Perhaps it's because the rise in the particular flavor of evangelical Christianity favored by so many of our conservative politicians provides a "get out of jail free" card. You need not live a virtuous life; all you need do is not get caught -- and if you get caught, it's still OK because Jesus died on the cross for your sins. And that means you can be forgiven for ANYTHING. Isn't that convenient? You don't have to think twice before calling the prostitution service to satisfy your fetish. You can just do it because you know God and Jesus will forgive you. And if you're especially lucky, your good, submissive Christian wife will also forgive you, for who is she to be more judgmental than Jesus?

It all works out so well for these guys, doesn't it?

Today's exhibit in Republican Christian moral hypocrisy is Louisiana Senator David Vitter, the first to be exposed as a patron of the "D.C. Madam"'s prostitution ring.

Vitter is a particularly nasty breed of Clean Slate Christian wingnuts. In 2004, Mary Jacoby wrote about Vitter in Salon:


He presents himself as a morally righteous, clean-cut family man, and his wife and three young children have become virtual campaign props. The Harvard-educated Rhodes scholar is also extremely intelligent, observers say, and runs perhaps the most effective political ads in the state.

[snip]

At a Sept. 21, 1993, town hall meeting in Metairie, he got into a confrontation with a questioner that led to a lawsuit against him.

Mercedes Hernandez, who was involved in Republican politics, testified that she frequently attended local meetings to engage officials on the issues, usually tape-recording the events. At a town hall meeting, Hernandez asked the state representative about a rumor she'd heard that he was supporting a gay-rights bill in the Legislature. Vitter became "enraged by her question, left the podium where he was standing, advanced toward her in a rapid, threatening manner, pushing aside chairs ... and grabbed a portable tape recorder" that Hernandez was holding, according to her legal complaint.

In his legal filings, Vitter denied that he had assaulted Hernandez and instead accused her of trying to set him up by planting the false idea with other attendees that he supported gay rights, a position that is anathema in his religious conservative district. He further accused Hernandez of working with John Treen and his other political enemies by trying to shop a story about the incident to the media.

After a trial, a judge awarded Hernandez $50. "The court finds that Mr. Vitter's demeanor changed when he saw the tape recorder. He became angry, agitated and excited," the judge wrote. "He thought Ms. Hernandez was using her question [about gay rights] as a ruse to 'set him up' and embarrass him." But the judge also admonished Hernandez. "It appears that Ms. Hernandez was rather enjoying the political advantage she seemed to have perceived herself to have gained."

[snip]

The Vitter campaign sent fliers to black voters stating that the racist David Duke was supporting his opponent. In fact, Treen had been an enemy of Duke and had tried to stop his rise in Louisiana GOP politics. "Dave Treen and I have absolutely no use for David Duke whatsoever," John Treen said. "He [Duke] tried to shake my hand once, and I said, 'I'm not going to shake your hand, you son of a bitch.' It's hypocritical to shake someone's hand if you consider them an enemy." But in what John Treen believes was a secret pact between Duke and Vitter, the former Ku Klux Klansman came out publicly for his nemesis, Treen.

The effect was to suppress the black vote. Amid low turnout, Vitter eked out a victory with 51 percent. Curiously, though, the New Orleans area precincts that had supported Duke in the earlier phase of the race went not for Treen -- whom the white supremacist had claimed to be supporting -- but for Vitter. That was evidence, John Treen claims, that Duke's supporters had secretly been rounding up votes for Vitter.

[snip]

In Congress, Vitter became a reliable vote for the extreme right, earning a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union in 2002. He vowed to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, even when pregnancy results from rape or incest; his only exception was to save the life of the mother. And -- with an eye on the governor's office -- he continued the crusade against gambling that he'd started in 1993 with the ethics complaint against Gov. Edwin Edwards.

In 2002, Vitter criticized his fellow Republican, Gov. Mike Foster, for supporting the expansion of a casino operated near the Texas border by the Jena Band of Choctaws. Coming to Vitter's aid was an advocacy group called the Committee Against Gambling Expansion, which mailed out campaign fliers on Vitter's behalf and allowed Vitter to use its name in phone calls to supporters.

It turned out that the advocacy group was not run by "Louisiana folks with the Christian community," as Vitter told the Times-Picayune he had initially thought. Rather, it was a sophisticated front group set up by a Washington lobbyist, who is now under federal investigation for his activities, on behalf of a rival tribe that was trying to block competition. Vitter has said he had no idea the Committee Against Gambling Expansion was actually representing casino interests.


The prostitution rumors were swirling even then, and Mrs. Vitter's response to them, when compared to Vitter's statement yesterday that

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."


...indicates that some serious guilt-tripping was laid on Mrs. Vitter during that presumably church-based "marriage counseling."

Here is what Mrs. Vitter said in 2000:

Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."


It isn't even a surprise anymore when these guys get caught. The question is whether it will matter; whether voters buy into this "clean slate Christianity" or if they too believe that it doesn't matter what you do because a Jewish carpenter got nailed to a cross 2000 years ago. I would hope not, for anyone who has lived knows that what you do is a far greater measure of your moral code than what you believe. Belief is easy. Action is hard.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, July 09, 2007

Sic[ko] 'im. boy!
Posted by Jill | 9:43 PM
Oh, this is truly a beautiful thing to behold. Michael Moore, after a sneering hatchet job about Sicko by Sanjay Gupta, lets Wolf Blitzer have it. It's about time someone took the media whores to task on their slavish adherence to the corporate status quo. Crooks and Liars has the video; don't miss it.

UPDATE: As promised, here is Moore's rebuttal to Sanjay Gupta.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Mr. Bush, your pants are not just on fire, but have already engulfed your nonesistent cojones
Posted by Jill | 6:11 AM
According to the Bush Administration's Charlie McCarthy, a.k.a. the New York Times, the Commuter/Decider "agonized" about the execution of Karla Faye Tucker while governor of Texas:

In his memoir, Mr. Bush wrote about agonizing over the case of Karla Faye Tucker, who in 1998 became the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War. Ms. Tucker, who was convicted in the ax murders of two people during a robbery in 1983, had become a born-again Christian while in prison, and her case drew support from across the political spectrum. Mr. Bush described feeling “like a huge piece of concrete was crushing me” as he waited with aides for Ms. Tucker’s execution. It was, he said, “the longest 20 minutes of my tenure as governor.”


Perhaps because it took so long and he didn't want to wait for the adrenaline rush he gets whenever he's responsible for another death of a human being.

Because in 1999, Tucker Carlson remembered it differently in an article in Talk Magazine (via Digby):


"Bush's brand of forthright tough-guy populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it.

While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'

I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' As it turns out, the Larry King-Karla Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place, at least not on television. During her interview with King, however, Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to election-year pressure from pro-death penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights."


It would have been nice for the Times to point this out.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

It won't be a withdrawal, it'll be a "post-surge redeployment"
Posted by Jill | 5:25 AM
It seems the White House, faced with an increasing number of Republican defections on support for endless war in Iraq, may want to cut off these defectors and Democrats at the pass by changing its own plans. Of course, such a save-face move for the perpetrator of this clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks can't be called a "withdrawal" or "retreat", so they're calling it a "post-surge redeployment":

White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq strategy are collapsing around them, according to several administration officials and outsiders they are consulting. They say that inside the administration, debate is intensifying over whether Mr. Bush should try to prevent more defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual withdrawal of American troops from the high-casualty neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities.

Four more Republican senators have recently declared that they can no longer support Mr. Bush’s strategy, including senior lawmakers who until now had expressed their doubts only privately. As a result, some aides are now telling Mr. Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a far more narrowly defined mission for American troops that would allow for a staged pullback, a strategy that he rejected in December as a prescription for defeat when it was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

[snip]

Last week, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, called in from a brief vacation to join intense discussions in sessions that included Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s longtime strategist, and Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff.

Officials describe the meetings as more of a running discussion than an argument. They say that no one is clinging to a stay-the-course position but that instead aides are trying to game out what might happen if the president becomes more specific about the start and the shape of what the White House is calling a “post-surge redeployment.”


Ah, buck up, George. You'll always have Joe Lieberman.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, July 08, 2007

Outsourcing = no accountability
Posted by Jill | 7:19 PM
In the Bush Administration, outsourcing is the equivalent of money laundering. Outsourcing the war to Blackwater and other contracting companies has enabled the war to be waged with no accountability under international law.

But the Administration's penchant for outsourcing goes even further -- they've outsourced national security functions as well:

The most intriguing secrets of the "war on terror" have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. They're about the mammoth private spying industry that all but runs U.S. intelligence operations today.

Surprised? No wonder. In April, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell was poised to publicize a year-long examination of outsourcing by U.S. intelligence agencies. But the report was inexplicably delayed -- and suddenly classified a national secret. What McConnell doesn't want you to know is that the private spy industry has succeeded where no foreign government has: It has penetrated the CIA and is running the show.

Over the past five years (some say almost a decade), there has been a revolution in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing. Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I'm told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) -- the heart, brains and soul of the CIA -- has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

These firms recruit spies, create non-official cover identities and control the movements of CIA case officers. They also provide case officers and watch officers at crisis centers and regional desk officers who control clandestine operations worldwide. As the Los Angeles Times first reported last October, more than half the workforce in two key CIA stations in the fight against terrorism -- Baghdad and Islamabad, Pakistan -- is made up of industrial contractors, or "green badgers," in CIA parlance.

Intelligence insiders say that entire branches of the NCS have been outsourced to private industry. These branches are still managed by U.S. government employees ("blue badgers") who are accountable to the agency's chain of command. But beneath them, insiders say, is a supervisory structure that's controlled entirely by contractors; in some cases, green badgers are managing green badgers from other corporations.

Sensing problems -- and possibly fearing congressional action -- the CIA recently conducted a hasty review of all of its job classifications to determine which perform "essential government functions" that should not be outsourced. But it's highly doubtful that such a short-term exercise can comprehensively identify the proper "blue/green" mix, especially because contractors' work statements have long been carefully formulated to blur the distinction between approvable and debatable functions.


I wonder how many of these companies were Bush campaign contributors, and I also wonder how much of our tax dollars they're getting paid?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share