Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Next on the Docket

Abortion returns to the SCOTUS spotlight. Just remember that Alito is currently jockeying for this job (I wonder how he'd do?).

Border Patrol

Earlier today, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a rather blunt remark about security around our borders, basically saying that there wasn't any.

This coincides with President Bush, who gave two vastly uninspiring border speeches on Monday and today about the subject. He did manage to re-endorse his to have illiegal immigrants work temporarily, a plan that has Republicans and Democrats alike upset (I guess he can be a uniter).

Bush's tone at home did not affect his policy on Iraq; he still thinks a pullout without victory is wrong. But he's not too clear about "victory" is.

Nevertheless, it doesn't stop the military from tapping a 52-year-old granddad.

Bush does plan on giving a speech tomorrow. It is supposed to be his most detailed address on progress in Iraq. Some think if Bush begins a pullout (aka, troop reduction) it's win-win for him and Republicans. But I think that would require Bush blaming the Democrats for making such a decision, and to date Bush has not given Democrats credit for any of his foriegn policy decisions.

Home Theater

Don't you hate it when you take a couple extra days off from work, only to get sick during that time? Well, in my case, it gave me a chance to catch up on my movie-watching, both old and new...

Before I got under the weather, I managed to catch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Without giving too much away, I think it was better than the first two but not as good as the third. And at the rate things are going, I'm not sure if Draco will ever be considered a worthy adversary. One thing though: I don't see the problem with the "kids" being older than the characters they play; has anyone heard of Beverly Hills, 90210? I'd rather see 16-year-olds play 14 then 30-year-olds play 17.

Elektra in eight words: Great special effects, good fight scenes, poor plot.

Flight of the Phoenix: sometimes movie makers are given a choice of making a movie just naughty enough to get an R rating or diluting it to get a PG rating. Phoenix was one of those movies. The movie could have been just as good without the swearing (it wasn't necessary to establish the characters) and gone PG, making it a family film. Or they could have had a love scene between the Captain and Kelly with some bloody fights involving the thieves/smugglers for a solid R rating. A movie like Phoenix should either have been given to Disney or Michael Bay, not both. Nevertheless, it's a decent film.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Be Thankful

As conservative columnist Ann Coulter disgraces Rep. Jack Murtha, Condi Rice hints at troop reduction.

Oh, and Michael Brown plans to help other businesses try and not let people die like he did.

Hope everyone (who celebrates it) enjoyed their Turkey Day. Now go to the mall and get to shopping! :)

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Off The Cheney

It a sense, Dick Cheney is the perfect Vice President (at least for George W. Bush). There was never a threat of him trying to usurp Bush for outright control of the White House and the Republican Party. This fact has gone along way to building up Bush's confidence and his effectiveness as he's navigated through his first (and now second) term.

However, the positives that come with Cheney also has negatives. A person who has semi-presidential powers but no presidential aspirations won't typically care about things like PR, poll numbers or the role of Congress. Why should he; he's not running for anything. As long as his base is satisfied he's done his job.

So his harsh words for Iraq war critics (most recently among them Rep. Murtha) should not come as a surprise. Cheney is the only member of the Bush Administration who has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Halliburton will be waiting for him when he finally decides to leave public service again (although his term as VP will end in 2009, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't consider working on attractive campaigns).

So while he has (and continues to) make some questionable claims, there can be no doubt: with few political obligations holding him in check, Cheney has become a very effective and dangerous VP.


Time's Almost Up...

Iraq Leaders want a timetable for US troop withdrawal. Will they be added to the list of "cut & run" critics created by the Bush Administration?

Monday, November 21, 2005

Bad Exit Strategy

President Bush didn't like some questions the Chinese press asked him the other day, so he tried to beat a hasty retreat. Little did he know how analogous his attempt would be to his options in Iraq (video can be seen here).

It appears that with Iraq as well, the exit strategy will not be quick and easy.

Oh yeah: and what did Bush actually accomplish in China?

Friday, November 18, 2005

Cheney's Traitor Checklist

Wasn't it about a month ago that defenders of Vice President Dick Cheney (and President George Bush) were saying that outing Valerie Plame was not treason, but typical D.C. politics?

If that's the case, than why isn't the same logic applied to those insinuating that President Bush and his administration misled us to war?

According to Cheney, such comments are treasonous:

"...the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts...

"Facts" isn't really the issue, though. It's the perception that was being given by the Bush Adminstration. That perception, believe it or not, influenced how people viewed the facts.

Take, for example, some of Cheney's quotes in regarding Iraq and al Qaeda:

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Or this one:

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004).

As far as Saddam being a threat: if Cheney felt that way, he's pretty much kept it to himself all this time. There's only one public statement from him on the subject:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."Source: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).

I'm really curious what Cheney would say if a war critic said this:

If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, "look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Or if a religious figure said this:

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there.

Oops! That weren't no war critic, it was Fox News' own Bill O'Reilly! And that religious figure was none other than 700 Clubs' Pat Robertson (aka, Rev. Ridiculous)!

So here's the scorecard, as far as I can see it:

1. Outing a CIA agent whose spouse is questioning your intelligence analysis = perfectly harmless politics.

2. Suggesting that the President's military strategy is flawed and that intelligence information leading up to the war was manipulated = "dishonest and reprehensible (read "treasonous") charges".

3. Suggesting that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 can blow up another U.S. city or that a city should be punished by a natural disaster = satirical riffs and messages from God.

Where would we be without Cheney around to clear things up?


Thursday, November 17, 2005

Great Responsibility

Let's take a break from the "Did Bush Lie" Debate for a moment. Being politics and all, proving such a thing in a court of law (public opinion is very different) will take some time and money, and quite honestly there are better venues for both. While it's common knowledge (to those who follow politics regularly, anyway) that Bush has a very small circle of people he gets advice from, it's very likely that he'd blame any "misunderstanding" of information on the CIA. It would then be up to the CIA to prove that they didn't change any information Bush didn't ask them to, which is highly unlikely at this stage.

But there's a different debate that hasn't gotten much airtime: what is Bush's responsibility in all of this? When he was declaring that "major combat" was over (a very slick way of phrasing the situation, BTW) under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, I don't remember hearing him mention a bi-partisan Congress backing his play. Sure he thanked Rumsfeld and the troops, but not one congratulatory remark was directed at a Senator or Congressman. He did, however:

1. Invoke memories of WWII (even though most his audience was probably too young to recall the actual events)
2. Mention that "men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air."
3. Invoke 9/11 in a way that could make you think there was a connection between it and Iraq.
4. Went on to say shortly after: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
5. Pretty much declare that while he would never give an official withdrawal time, he's provide plenty of false hope: "The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."

Did I mention that he was up on the podium all by himself?

Now, with all those people daring to question the motives of the war, President Bush has switched to "I thought we were all in this together!" mode, which is just perplexing. How many stories were written and/or published about him being the proverbial "cowboy" who goes it alone, logic be damned? 50? 1,000? Yet now, now with things being unavoidingly bad -the polls and the pictures can't both be lying all the time, can they?- he wants to be a team player? Now he wants to form Voltron? Give me a break.

When everything was hunky-dory, five-by-five, he was on top of a mountain by himself. You could tell with each following speech that between the minor acknowledgements here and there to the "supporting cast" he was patting himself on the back as the star. Now that masses have seen some of the "behind-the-scenes", and they realize that the movie wasn't so great. People want answers and they're not getting them.

But instead of taking responsibility, Bush has decided to duck. He's decided to take a "if I'm going down, I won't go alone" mentality. What happened to "honor and dignity?"

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Watergate, Revisited

Nat'l Sec. Advisor Hadley told Washington Post editor/author Bob Woodward about Valerie Plame's identity. Woodward told lawyers this during questioning about the CIA leak. But Woodward never really told the WaPo, and he's sorry.

If Hadley is indicted, will he resign too? And how much bad news can the White House take before President Bush has to speak on this (instead of continously trying to defend the Iraq War)?

Why Mongolia?

That's a question some are asking. In the past, the area was little more than a refueling station. No President has really "gone" there for anything else before. The country wasn't part of the Coalition of the Willing, so there are no Iraq War ties...or are they?

Officially, the purpose is to "discuss with President Bagabandi important issues in U.S. -- Mongolian relations, sharing views on international problems, and affirming the warm relationship between the American and Mongolian peoples."

This could be a recruitment run: "children and youth under 35 make up 70 percent of the population and the average age is 21 year." But considering that only 6% of the country is Christian (50% are Buddhist Lamaist, 4% are Muslim and 40% are listed as "none") it could also be part of the "We Love Muslims Tour" that Karen Hughes was a part of....and still is...with varying degrees of success.

Of maybe he's just looking for some political love:

Bush is expected to get a warmer welcome in Asia than he did earlier this month in Argentina at the Summit of the Americas, where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez led a protest against U.S. policies and Bush failed to gain support from the 34 nations attending for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone.

Japan, the first stop on Bush's trip, and Mongolia, the last, are likely to give him the most enthusiastic response, while China and South Korea probably will be cooler but respectful.

If that's the case, it's understandable. He's definitely not feeling the love here.

Good Friends are Hard to Find...And Keep

President Bush may lose another ally: British Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to BBC News, there are those who think his time has come and gone.

The significance? Blair was the last of the "major" World Leaders that stood by Bush and his "attack Iraq" policy. And by Bush alienating France, Germany and most of the UN, he has precious few allies left to make his "Coalition of the Willing" look legitimate.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

"20 Years From Now We'll Still Be On Top"

Bush went all "Puff Daddy" (during the "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems" video) when describing how he chooses his judges. But recently Joe and Jane Voter learned that 20 years ago SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito was "personally" against abortion rights and some affirmative action programs (if you are a woman or a minority or both you should be a little worried by now).

I'm sure some Alito-lovers will say, "that was so long ago!" but regardless it means one of two things: either President Bush wants abortion outlawed (and civil rights reduced) or he's a hypocrite.

UPDATE: It's Alito who's the hypocrite. Should a man who lies to get a job be considered for the Supreme Court?

True Colors

The real intentions of the Senate Republicans were revealed as they knocked down an effort by Senate Democrats to get a commitment from President Bush to withdrawal troops. All Republican Senators voted against this amendment. The Democrats who voted against this were:

Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)

A lighter measure was adopted.

Apparently, getting answers and re-affirming our troops that Iraq will not be like Vietnam was not part of the Senate Republican's strategy. They were really just bummed because the Democrats released their outline for withdrawal (yesterday) and wanted to stay one step ahead politically.

A Sincere Form of Flattery

Well looky here! It seems that Democrats have ideas afterall. Check out this plan for Iraq (as delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid):

First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

Golly, I wonder how Republicans will react? Surely they are "the party of ideas," right?

An Unclear and Present Danger

President Bush prides himself on being clear. I can only assume by "clear" he means "people understand my beliefs" and not "my speeches are easy to translate from politicise to plain 'ol english." Because if he means the later, his ability to be clear is as good as his multitasking skills.

His speech last Friday made many points, but there's not much of a consensus on what the overall message was. Normally I could care less about such things (his speeches have never been a rallying cry for our troops, in fact, more often than not it has provoked the enemy more than our allies) but this time it's different. This time around his theme seemed to revolve around making sure our troops are doubt free, but reactions from the masses indicate they don't really know what Bush was trying to accomplish.

Or maybe people are just reading what they want to read. I don't know. You be "The Judge:"

Bryan Preston (via Michelle Malkin) believes the speech was an excellent opportunity to blame former President Bill Clinton, because he too had information and theories about Saddam having WMDs (but I don't remember us invading Iraq under his administration):

You can either go to Google and plug in the search string in that graphic, or you can just click on the graphic. Google will take you back in time to 1998, the last time prior to the invasion that the US and Saddam Hussein had a major confrontation. The Google search string Clinton Iraq 1998 will bring up 3.5 million hits about that conflict, during which pretty much every prominent Democrat expressed his or her belief that Saddam had or was developing WMD and was a threat because of it.

Fred Kaplan from Slate says Bush has flip-flopped:
President George W. Bush has suddenly shifted rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Until recently, the administration's line was basically, "Everything we are saying and doing is right." It was a line that held him in good stead, especially with his base, which admired his constancy above all else. Now, though, as his policies are failing and even his base has begun to abandon him, a new line is being trotted out: "Yes, we were wrong about some things, but everybody else was wrong, too, so get over it."

From Redstate, Bush is a fighter (and those who accuse him of lying are liers themselves, so they shouldn't throw stones):
President Bush came out swinging today, once again laying out the strategy in the War Against Terror and taking on those trying to rewrite recent history to fit their political goals.
As he did last month in his Never Back Down, Never Give In speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, the President reminded us that on September 11, 2001 "we saw the destruction that terrorists intend for our nation." President Bush again succinctly summarized the goal and vision of the enemy and eloquently laid out our strategy to win the War On Terror.
Concerning the never substantiated allegations that the administration somehow skewed intelligence (I guess this doesn't count as "substantial"- Pryme) to justify the Iraq front, President Bush was more diplomatic than he could have been...

Martin Frost (via Fox News) says that all of a sudden, Bush wants to play the Blame Game:

President Bush on Friday attacked the patriotism of Democratic congressmen and senators by saying that elected officials who now raise questions about the actions leading up to the current war in Iraq are letting down our troops in the field and giving aid and comfort to the insurgents.
Somewhere along the line, President Bush seems to have forgotten his basic civics lesson about how a democracy works. Thanks to our successful revolution against King George III, we have the right to dissent in this country. We have the right to question the actions of our own government. To suggest otherwise would be to relegate us to a dictatorship. And, after all, we have been telling the Iraqi people about the virtues of a democracy.

And there's Josh Micah Marshall from Talking Points Memo, who thinks that Bush is avoiding the responsibility that comes with his job title:
As I said above, many Democrats ran scared in the face of this once-popular president's onslaught and said many things they probably now wish they hadn't. Let's catalog those statements and let them answer for their cowardice and wobbliness. But the president was president -- a fact of accountability he never seems to grasp. He drove the train. He and his advisors cynically worked to convince the public that Saddam was tied to 9/11 -- an explosive claim in the aftermath of the 9/11 horror. That's something they knew wasn't true and which none of the president's critics, to be the best of my knowledge, ever agreed with or argued for. President Bush and his administration are on the line for that.

Trust me, theres more; just too much to post. But does this look like the President is sending a clear message on what we are doing in Iraq? What we should be doing? All I see is more confusion. And that confusion, that lack of clarity, is what's really putting our troops in danger.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Party Like It's 2004

Didn't I say he was getting battle-ready? I believe I did. But I never knew President Bush would use Veteran's Day to rehash 2004 Election talking points. Or revisit the 2004 debates. He knows he won the election, right?

Unfortunately for Bush, the American people are having Voter's Remorse. Not supplying soldiers for a war that could have been prevented will do that sort of thing. As well as allowing torture (even if you don't publicly endorse it). And moving more swiftly for Supreme Court nominees than rescuing drowning and starving victims of a natural disaster. Yeah, those type of things tend to bend people the wrong way.

So Bush, like any person who is taking a beating, goes to his strength. Unfortunately, the Ol' 9/11 Well is starting to get dry. Most people accept that the terrorists that were behind 9/11 were not the same group of people running Iraq. New evidence is popping up everyday that further proves that the Bush Administration had the CIA use the information they gathered to justify a case for going to Iraq.

To make matters worse, his bread-and-butter speeches aren't cutting it anymore. People won't buy that Senator Kerry was all gun-ho for Bush's rather aggressive foreign policy initiative (read: invade Iraq) when Bush made it quite clear a year a go (when he was running for re-election) that Kerry was unqualified because he didn't support the Iraq War policy. The voters can't believe Bush's claim that everyone (meaning, presumably, all of Congress) knew what the Bush Administration knew when Bush shut off access to Senate members awhile back.

But when you think about it, Bush has little choice. Republicans who don't like him much (either because they think he's a fake conservative or they want to make a run for the White House themselves) are beginning to take bites out of him. Democrats are beginning to show the backbone the media said they never had (you'd think our last Democratic President was JFK).

In short, the list of VOTBAs (Villain Of The Bush Administration) is growing everyday. If you're against the Iraq War, you're a VOTBA. If you think that maybe cutting taxes during wartime is a bad idea, you're a VOTBA. Want a real investigation on the CIA leaks? Wonder why our troops don't have enough supplies? Don't agree with Alito or the President's Social Security Program? VOTBA, VOTBA, VOTBA.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Raising Kaine in Virginia

It looks like Virginia has a new governor, and a DEMOCRATIC one at that. Tim Kaine took the election by a 52% margin while Jerry Kilgore got 46%. This election was particularly nasty. A Kilgore ad alleged that Kaine’s opposition to the death penalty meant he would not have executed Hitler. Kaine cites his Roman Catholic beliefs for his opposition to capital punishment, but insisted he would carry out death sentences because they are the law. The funny thing was that President (Boo) Bush came out to Richmond International Airport for a time Monday evening to try to rally support for Kilgore. I guess he didn't realize that he hurt Kilgore's chances because Bush's approval rating being at an all-time low at 36% I believe it was (or is). It was a nice shot of mud to the face of Kaine, but ultimately futile. Looks like times are changing.....

Oh to be a Fly on the Wall......

Have you ever imagined what it would be like to be a fly on the wall of 2 people gettin' down? well fellas this is for you!

The Carolina Panthers got rid of two cheerleaders who were arrested at a bar where witnesses told police the women were having sex with each other in a restroom stall.

Renee Thomas, 20, of Pittsboro, N.C., and Angela Keathley, 26, of Belmont, N.C., were fired Monday for violating a signed code that bans conduct embarrassing to the team or organization, Carolina Panthers spokesman Charlie Dayton said.

The women were not in town to perform at Sunday's game between the Panthers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Thomas was charged with battery for allegedly striking a bar patron when she was leaving the restroom. She was released from the Hillsborough County Jail on $500 bail before police learned she had given them a driver's license belonging to another Panthers cheerleader not in Tampa

Detectives were trying to determine how Thomas got the driver's license of a third cheerleader.

Thomas was charged Monday with giving a false name and causing harm to another — a third-degree felony punishable by probation or a jail term of one to five years, said police spokeswoman Laura McElroy.

Keathley was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, and was released on $750 bail. The women could not be reached for comment Monday.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Wading Through the Heat

One Shaq injury and now people are writing off the Miami Heat. Jump to conclusions much, people?

If anything, the Heat's demise will be because of their new parts (which they really didn't need).

They didn't need a 3-point shooting point foward. Or a crazy-passing, trigger-happy point guard who needs decaf. Or the ghost of a once-decent one-on-one guard.

What they need is Shaq, Wade and some selfless role players. What they need is for Wade to figure out that he's the best player on the team. And while they're at it, back Stan Van Gundy as coach and play some defense (it was the Pacers for goodness sakes; not the Suns).

Besides, Shaq's knee doesn't seem that bad anway.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Political Tennis

So Tom DeLay (Republican form Texas and House Majority Leader) is facing a conspiracy case, right? The prosecutor is Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

The first judge assigned to the case was accused of giving too much money to Democrats, making him (according to DeLay's lawyer) biased towards the case (never mind that DeLay's own lawyer has given as much money to Democrats).

So a new judge is chosen. Let's get the trial underway, right? Wrong.

Earle comes back: "I'm sorry, this new judge has given money to Republicans. He's biased too!"

This could go on for awhile. Grab a chair and get some popcorn.

Scotty Rewrites the Rules...Again

Yesterday, Scott McClellan effectively told the press that there is a "new" new standard for when the White House will officially comment on issues related to the outed CIA Agent, one Valerie Palme Wilson:

Q Kind of a housekeeping question. You repeatedly say that you’ve been instructed not to comment on the CIA leaks case, because there’s an ongoing investigation. Can we infer from that that when Fitzgerald announces his investigation is completed you will be in a position to comment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said I’d be glad to talk more about it after it’s come to a conclusion.
Q Well, would that mark the conclusion?
MR. McCLELLAN: Would what?
Q The end of the Fitzgerald investigation.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there’s an investigation and legal proceeding. And the comments I make –
Q So now you’re adding court cases.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Bob, I think any time there’s been a legal matter going on, we’ve said, that’s a legal matter.
Q No, what you said is, you can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think what I said last — and look what I said –
Q So you’ve added the words, “legal proceeding.”
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, now there is a legal proceeding.
Q So you’re adding the words, “legal proceeding,” to the formulation.
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s not — any time there is a legal proceeding such as that, we don’t discuss it. I mean, I think you can look back at –
Q Because –
MR. McCLELLAN: Because it’s a legal matter, and it’s before the courts.
Q The world is crawling with legal matters that the White House comments on all the time. What sets this apart?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, there are legal matters that occur all the time that we do not comment on, because they’re ongoing legal matters that are before the courts. Remember, numerous times we’ve referred stuff to the Justice Department because it’s an ongoing legal proceeding.
Q What is the concern of the White House, they’re not commenting?
MR. McCLELLAN: Exactly what I said. Maybe you want to go back and look at my remarks, but we don’t want to prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial.
Q Okay, because your remarks earlier had suggested that you didn’t want to influence an investigation that was ongoing.
MR. McCLELLAN: We don’t want to do that, either. We want to do our part to continue to cooperate, and that’s what we will do.

Got that? So now there's no comments until the legal procedding is over. Which may happen after Bush leaves the White House, so Scotty's home free. Talk about covering your ass.


Blaze's last post? Based on this report.

My Bad

Sorry guys. I know I haven't been around much lately, but I've been really busy with work, school (sometimes I even get to sleep! Yay!), and my other projects I'm working on in addition to The Now, but now I'm back, and I have a funny thing on Kanye and 50 Cent. So here goes......

For those of you who don't know by now, some time ago Kanye said "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Personally, I'm inclined to agree, but it seems 50 Cent doesn't. Big surprise, right? Anyway, 50 told ContactMusic.com that he felt "they responded to it the best way they can". He also said "What Kanye was saying, I don't know where that came from".

This isn't the first time 50 (Curtis Jackson) took a shot at Kanye. This past September in an interview with MTV, he said he felt that Kanye was popular because of him, because "After 50 Cent, (hip-hop fans) was looking for something non-confrontational, and they went after first thing that came along. That was Kanye West, and his record took off."

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Behind Closed Doors

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid pulled out a rare rule today (called Rule 21) to send the Senate into a closed session. The Purpose: talk about the methods and investigation that led America to war with Iraq. The Problem? Before this, the Senate was working on the budget. And traditionally, the Senate Leaders talk about doing these sort of things beforehand (it's a courtesy, not a rule).

So expect some Republican Senators to say things like Reid doesn't care about America or he wants to have big government. Of course this is silly; any one with working knowledge of Parli Pro or even Robert's Rules know that half the battle in politics is being able to use rules (especially obscure ones) in your favor.

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. And for so-called policymakers, it's border-line comical that anyone would complain to this degree. I mean, your party has majority control for goodness sakes.

For a raw text of Reid's speech, try this out. Or even better, here.