Last night we showed a clip of the President giving a speech. Behind him stood a lad who was obviously bored silly. The 14-year-old or so yawned, scratched, yawned, yawned, checked his watch, bent over, stared at the ceiling, and then fell asleep during the President's speech. It was very funny. So funny, in fact, that CNN replayed the clip Tuesday during their broadcasts. But, but, but, the first time is was shown, CNN anchorwoman Daryn Kagan reported that the White House said the clip was a total fake, it was merely the Late Show having fun with their ability to edit and do TV tricks. Dave says what the CNN reporter said was an out and out 100% lie. A couple hours later, CNN anchor person Kyra Phillips reported that the kid was at the speech but not where the Late Show had him. Dave again makes the claim, "That's an out and out absolute 100% lie. That kid was exactly where we said he was." It's true. The speech was at a Florida Rally on March 20th at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida. Dave is irked that the White House was trying to make him look like a jerk. But he's glad he got his side of the story out in the open.
Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? That the White House would lie to CNN regarding a clip on a comedy show and that CNN and would report that lie? And then when CNN and the White House are caught lying, they would revise their stories and lie again about something as trivial as a comedy clip?
I mean, come on. Even Nixon wasn't that crooked and paranoid to lie about the clips on late night TV! You'd have to be absolutely bat shit crazy and "I think I'm Napolean" egomaniacal to lie to CNN about a fucking comedy clip on late night TV!
And CNN would have to be completely without journalistic ethics to honestly report a ding-bat lie like that, as if it were true. Wouldn't they? I mean, if CNN were to report some Hitler in his bunker insane gibberish from the White House about a fucking comedy bit as if it were true, without even checking if a silly comedy bit was true, then you would seriously have to doubt the objectivity and reliability of CNN, wouldn't you?
I thought I had grown paranoid. Whenever I watched CNN, I thought there was a distinctive pattern to their news reports. If the story was something negative about Kerry, it would start off with a negative accusation about Kerry, followed by a statement by Kerry, and then completed with a statement from the Bush campaign.
But, whenever there was a negative story about Bush, it would start off with the accusation about Bush, and end with a rebuttal by the Bush campaign.
It was, and is, strange. No matter what the story, the last word in the CNN report is from the Bush campaign. No matter what.
Anyway, I've been noticing this for months, and, yet, I've never mentioned it to anyone--not even CNN, in one of my cranky emails. It was just too weird. I thought I've obviously gone round the bend in my partisan desires to see Bush defeated and I'm getting as crazy as a Republican, as the old saying goes.
And even though, I would sit and watch hours of CNN and CNN Headline News, and I would see it again and again, I would shake my head and tell myself I'm just imagining some pattern.
Watch the clips. Watch not one, but two, CNN anchors actually lie, actually repeat a White House lie over something as silly as a fucking late night comedy clip, watch the CNN anchors repeat a ridiculous White House revision of their story, and then join me in my paranoia.
Christ, I thought just Rudi Bahktiar was a lying, idiotic tool of the administration.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- For the eight years Bob Barr served in Congress, he peered down with unflinching conservatism on witnesses appearing before his committees.
Barr was the leading supporter eight years ago of the Defense of Marriage Act, which former President Clinton signed over the objections of many Democrats. That measure said that under federal law, marriage could refer only to the relationship between a man and a woman. It also said that no state was required to recognize action in another state to allow same-sex marriages.
No mention of unflinching conservative Bob Barr's traditional values past, though:
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 12) -- Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt is accusing Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia of sexual infidelity, hypocrisy and lying under oath about an abortion.
Barr is refusing to discuss his personal life with the news media, but issued a statement saying "I have never perjured myself...I have never suggested, urged, forced or encouraged anyone to have an abortion."
In a late-night news conference in California, Flynt released an affidavit from Barr's former wife, Gail, in which she said Barr paid for an abortion she had in 1983 and that he never objected to it.
Barr said under oath in his 1986 divorce testimony that he did object to the abortion.
The ex-wife also said in the affidavit that she now believes Barr, while still married to her, began an affair with the woman he married a month after the divorce became final in 1986.
Neither Barr nor his current wife, Jeri, denied an affair when asked about it repeatedly during the divorce proceedings.
What do you think? Bob Barr gay as hearts in spring, or what? He's certainly never done or said anything because he actually meant it.
And, in case--or because of course--Republicans have forgotten this one, Bob Barr was one of the biggest hell and brimstone, "Clinton lacks the moral authority to lead this nation" bullshitters in the Republican House that impeached him.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House warned OPEC on Wednesday that it should not take actions that would hurt the U.S. economy, but was careful not to directly criticize the organization's decision to tighten oil supplies.
"The president consistently said it is important for producers not to take action that would hurt our economy," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
McClellan did not directly respond to questions about why that strategy has not worked, but said the administration remains in constant contact with oil producers.
"We believe oil prices should be set by market forces in order to make sure that we have adequate supplies available. That's always been our view, and we are always in close contact with major producers around the world about our view," he said.
In terms of solutions, the White House continues to press Congress to pass an energy bill, stalled in Congress for some three years.
Christ, how stupid the administration thinks the American people are. And, if the American people allow this back alley mugging and bullshit to continue, the administration is correct.
Doesn't this remind you of the spring of 2001? When California was descending into rolling black-outs, 300 hundred percent increases in electricity prices, and massive, multi-billion dollar debt? All at the hands of companies like Enron who were engaged in widespread fraud, completely gaming the market and ripping off the consumers and taxpayers?
Yes, the Enron that RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie was a lobbyist for. The Enron that the Bush/Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot was a lobbyist for. The Enron that Bush's Army Secretary Thomas White was a top executive of. The Enron that Bush's good buddy, Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay was the CEO of. The Enron that provided private jets to the Bush/Cheney campaign team during the 2000 election. The Enron that wrote the Bush/Cheney energy policy after private meetings with Big Time Dick Cheney.
Yes, that Enron.
Remember this defense of market forces and "long term" energy policy:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday that California's electricity shortages should be solved "in California by Californians" as he convened a Cabinet task force to examine long-term energy policy.
Bush said his administration will examine California's problems, but he offered little hope of federal help for the state.
"The task force that is being assembled will not only deal with the very short-run issue dealing with the West, but, obviously, the longer-term issues that will be confronting our country for a while unless we're willing to act boldly and swiftly," Bush said. "Which we will do."
Right. That, again, was while Enron was gaming the market, screwing the public, and ripping the American people off to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, before collapsing and bankrupting tens of thousands of shareholders and wiping out the retirement accounts of thousands of employees.
And the Bush people reacted to that Enron by saying government intervention was not the answer but rather a comprehensive energy policy, written by Enron. Well, Enron's gone, and now OPEC is squeezing the American consumer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the administration is saying what?
That the very same comprehensive energy policy is the solution. The same FUCKING bullshit one proposed by the frauds and criminals and long time Bush associates and friends at Enron. The same fucking one that was conceived by criminals to rip off consumers and screw American taxpayers and that has been laying around for three years because after the widespread corruption of Enron was exposed to the public no normal politician would be stupid enough to get within a thousand feet of the incredibly stupid and dishonest blueprint for wholesale theft.
But the Bush administration is not filled with normal politicians. They are abnormal in their capacity for trying to rip off the American taxpayer and screw the general public as long as they have their hand in the till. They are shameless in their dishonesty. They don't care.
You know why? Because by the time they're done, and the United States is hopelessly debt-ridden and insolvent, with no jobs and a crumbling infrastructure, they'll still all be stinking rich. It doesn't matter to them. In fact, the poorer the American people are, the better for the Bush's and their friends.
At a certain point, Americans will be cheaper than Mexicans. And Bush and his Texas friends won't have to fuck around with their pidgeon Spanish to get their garbage picked up.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The 9/11 commission hopes to hear public testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice within the next 10 days, panel Chairman Thomas Kean said Wednesday.
"We would prefer it happen as soon as possible," a White House spokesman said Wednesday. "We're in discussion with them, and they have to coordinate everybody's schedule."
The administration is seeking to quell a political firestorm sparked by criticism from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.
After months of resisting having Rice testify publicly under oath, the White House is now saying they would prefer to have her testify as soon as possible. Really? Well, she could have testified months ago. But she was too busy talking to every television and radio station, and newspaper which would print her statements, statements, which, by the way, contradicted her private testimony, which was not under oath.
Hilarious. Can anyone take these guys serious?
The White House had resisted letting Rice testify, arguing that to do so would be a violation of executive privilege.
Bush announced Tuesday that he would waive that privilege because the attacks were a "unique circumstance."
Well, it was a "unique circumstance", i.e., the press and the public were reacting to it as they should have reacted to the run-up to the war in Iraq--with the skepticism and disapproval that these obviously dishonest and politically motivated actions deserve.
But "unique" now? I don't know. Public laughing and disapproval at silly pronouncements and blatantly politically motivated actions from the White House are becoming more commonplace.
But the perhaps most bizarre and laughable development:
The commission also will hear from Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who said Tuesday they will meet jointly with all 10 commission members. Previously, the president and Cheney had agreed to meet with the chairman and vice chairman in a session set to last an hour.
"They asked to testify together, and we didn't see how that compromised our investigation at all," Kean said. "We are going to ask the same questions and get the same answers.
I could write something about this ridiculousness, but Josh Marshall nails it down so completely, what's the point?
For my money, I say it's reason two and three. Bush has had the fewest press conferences of any modern American president, and the few he has, like before the Iraq war, are often scripted. When he meets alone with an incredibly sympathetic journalist, like Tim Russert, who is serving up big, fat softball questions, Bush sweats, and twitches and generally becomes incoherent and nonsensical.
Again, Republicans, doesn't it embarrass you that your president is so slow on his feet and has such a pathetic grasp of the facts of his own presidency that he can not--or is not allowed--to speak to the public without a baby sitter?
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Suspected insurgents killed four American civilian contractors in a grenade attack Wednesday in central Iraq, U.S. officials said.
Cheering residents in Fallujah pulled charred bodies from burning vehicles and hung them from a Euphrates River bridge.
Crowds gathered around the vehicles and dragged at least one of the bodies through the streets, witnesses said.
Residents pulled another body from one of the cars and beat it with sticks.
Elsewhere in the Fallujah region, five American soldiers died in a roadside bombing near Habbaniya, the U.S. military said.
The fatalities brought the U.S. military death toll in Iraq to 600, 408 of them in hostile action.
Even though the weapons of mass destruction argument turned out to be baloney, we, as Americans, can be proud to have given hundreds of billions of dollars and 600 American lives and thousands of wounded for the great humanitarian cause of freeing a people from despotism. And to have them reciprocate by dragging the dead, burned bodies of Americans through their streets, to the cheer of crowds.
Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."
So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.
The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.
And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."
But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."
And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.
Is this really what the Republicans hoped for for our country when they backed Bush in 2000? Is this really what they hope for and admire from our country right now?
We are now, even in Israel, the gold standard when it comes to dishonesty in government?
Republicans, please, admit you got taken with the big Bush money machine that smeared John McCain, accusing him of treason and insanity, and having an illegitimate child, and that you backed the wrong horse.
John Kerry might not be perfect, but when he was just beginning his Senate career, George Bush was still an obnoxious drunk, living off the money of his daddy's friends, and sometimes thinking about what he'd like to do if he ever decided to get a day job.