President Clinton let big donors sleep in the White House.

Correction:  President George W. Bush let big donors sleep in the White House and Camp David.  The Iron Mouth regrets the error.

Lutheran Executive Officer in charge of the chaplain squadron at the Air Force Academy complains about the oppressive religious atmosphere at the Academy and the failure of a program to teach tolerance of other religions.  The result?  She's fired.

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church, who forced out 40 Democrats from his congregation, has resigned. 

While reading this article yesterday about how White House officials repeatedly pushed for elevated threat level warnings using only the flimsiest of evidence, it occurred to me that we really haven't had such warnings since Mr. Bush was reelected.  Seems to me this was almost a monthly occurrence throughout 2004, so my question of the day for our loyal IRONMOUTH readers is this:

Why haven't there been the same level of terrorist alerts this year as we saw last?

a.  Tom Ridge no longer heading the Department of Homeland Security.

b.  Terror alerts an integral part of the President's re-election campaign and no longer needed.

c.  Terrorists no longer hate our freedoms and seek to destroy them.

We encourage you to come up with your own explanation, if you can.....

If I can't have it, nobody can.

If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official.

 "If they see the Sunnis getting beaten up by the Shiites, there will be extensive Arab support," agrees a U.S. Army officer. "There will be no holds barred."

Before I get a million comments about how this is the last gasp--take a look at what the bad guys did--they laid low for months and unleashed the attacks right when the new Iraqi government was at its weakest--during sectarian haggling over cabinet positions.  They're not stupid.  We're going to have to stop being stupid really fast. 

Not a single problem created by Bush or made worse by his creation has gotten better since the election, folks.  Ever notice how while Bush is on a foreign trip North Korea makes noises like its going to test a bomb and Iran announces its going to reprocess uranium. 

Bush ate international crow today. 

President Bush took a place of honor on Red Square amid symbols of Soviet power Monday and saluted the greatest military victory of an empire formerly regarded as America's most-threatening enemy.

Tanks rumbled on the streets and warplanes screeched overhead as Bush and his wife, Laura, joined a long list of presidents, prime ministers and dignitaries at a grand parade celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union paid the heaviest price of all the triumphant allies - nearly 27 million soldiers and citizens killed in what is remembered here as the Great Patriotic War.

Ten years ago, President Clinton boycotted Moscow's military parade on the 50th anniversary of V-E day to protest Russia's brutal military campaign in Chechnya. Clinton waited in his hotel, emerging later for talks with Boris Yeltsin. But Bush showed no reluctance, eager for Vladimir Putin's help in the war on terror and problems in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea.

Bush watched goose-stepping soldiers and flags emblazoned with the Soviet hammer and sickle that recalled the days of communist rule.

Putin paraded the Red Army in front of him.  As I watched the Russian TV on our public access cable, I saw huge CCCP flags and banners, complete with pictures of Lenin himself on the flags.  All right in front of Bush.  If you don't think that didn't win Putin big points amongst Russian voters, think again.

We are not in a good position strategically.  That's right, Bush has made us weaker.  Threats abound, none are gone.

Rush, splitting his own party.  Aaaah I love it:

The deal would do this. It would involve having a half dozen members of each party sign a memo of understanding that would bind all of them to certain actions on judicial nominations. The six Republicans would agree to block Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to invoke the nuclear option and to give up trying to seek confirmation of three of the seven federal appeals court nominees who were filibustered in the last Congress. For their part the six Democrats would pledge to allow votes on the other four nominees, and vote to cut off filibusters on all other judicial nominees named by President Bush for the next year and a half, except in 'extreme circumstances,'" quote, unquote.

He doesn't like the deal:

After all, one senator's definition of "extreme circumstances" may differ from another's.

Indeed it could Rush, indeed it could.

So he goes after his own boys

I am told that Senator Specter is ready to go for this. I'm told that Specter is ready to go for this. These guys on our side, folks, I just don't understand it. They are so afraid of upsetting long-standing Senate tradition. I'm having trouble keeping up with this. We want the Senate Republicans to defend the prerogatives of this president as in every past president and we want a vote. We want a vote on changing the filibuster so we know where each of these senators stands on such an important issue. This isn't another pork bill or spending bill that you can just punt down the road and deal with later. This is a constitutional matter. You know, I'm getting blue in the face, but it seems necessary to warn Republican senators: This issue is extremely important to the grassroots out there. This is something that matters to the base, and they voted on this, and they'll vote on it again in the future however it turns out, and what we're all concerned about here is the power the judiciary exercises in this country today -- and we're concerned that not enough is being done about it by elected branches. And if a Republican majority in the Senate can't even -- or worse, even, won't -- step to the plate to reinstitute what was the status quo for 214 years and push back the Chuck Schumers and Ted Kennedys and the Joe Bidens, then what principles do they stand for?

Ooops, now we see something very, very, rare--Rush Limbaugh trying to play defense in explaining why it was Republican's actions against Clinton's nominees that started this fight in the first place:

Now, in this case the filibuster was not used. There was no violation of Senate rules in what the Republicans did. They didn't pass some of these nominees out of committee. Some of Bush's nominees haven't come out of committee. But none of the senators that came out of the judiciary committee when Clinton was president and the Republicans are running the committee, none of them were filibustered. Those that got out of committee got votes on the floor.

It ain't hard to tell right from wrong folks.  You just gotta look.

Let's look at these quotes today from several institutions victimised by Finnish 16 year old hacker,  Stakkato-

A Navy spokesman at Patuxent River, James Darcy, said Monday said that "if there was some sort of attempted breach on those addresses, it was not significant enough of an action to have generated a report."

Monte Marlin, a spokeswoman for the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, whose computers Stakkato also claimed to have breached, confirmed Monday that there had been "unauthorized access" but said, "The only information obtained was weather forecast information."

Why are they telling us that the data stolen was weather reports?  You know its worse, otherwise they would have said there was no intrusion at all or classed it as minor.  Nope they got burned.

And look at the other spokesperson--who the hell says "if there was some sort of attempted breach on those addresses, it was not significant enough of an action to have generated a report."?  Then he indicates that no report is generated when they get attacked if its "minor."  Not exactly reassuring stuff now is it?  They got burned big time.  This is what we call a CYA coverup.  I don't blame them, its the job they have to do, but they could do it a little bit better, don't you think?

I just wanted to note the passing of a great American; Colonel David Hackworth, the most decorated soldier in US military history died the other day of bladder cancer at age 74.  To me Hackworth was a breath of fresh air when it came to discussing military matters.  Besides an extraordinary career brought to an end by his criticism of the Vietnam war, Hack wrote widely and often about the needs of the ordinary soldier and the perversity of the Pentagon bureacracy.  In a world where the cable channels bring on their retired generals to support the Pentagon's version of events, Hackworth was rarely afraid to call something bullshit when it was.  You may not always agree with his opinions, but you respected the man and where they came from.  Here is a little memorial posted to his website if anyone wishes to pay their respects to his family. 

I was shocked to see this on DailyKos this morning.  I live in Tennessee and although North Carolina was Helms country for a lot of years, it still has a much more progressive reputation among Southerners than most other states in the southeast. I guess its all relative.  The kicker is this local news clip where the minister refuses to appear but says it wasn't politically motivated after which the anchor suggests its not clear if the Church's bylaws were followed.  Probably couldn't find a more obvious or bland thing to say to wrap up the report? 

If you're pissed off about this too, then you might want to contact the organizations listed by georgia10 on his update post here.  Its not up to one minister or one church or one political party to decide who is and who isn't a Christian and its about time concerned citizens step up and let their voices be heard!

   

You'd think that if the knowledge of how to make the IEDs killing and maiming Americans and Iraqis alike came from a 1965 US Army manual that we'd have a better idea how to take care of the problem?

I could care less about American Idol.  I've never seen the show.  But I'd like to point out something about how lawyers and P.R. people work.  During the Watergate era, Woodward and Bernstein coined a term for a special denial of press reports that did not actually deny anything.  Case in point comes from some sort of scandal for American Idol, where one of the judges, former singer Paula Abdul is accused of having an affair with a contestant.  The gentleman in question is gave an interview to ABC News in which he said he had an affair with Ms. Abdul.  Paula's response? she:

    "will not dignify the false statements made by Corey Clark with a response."

A non-denial denial is essentially a denial in which both the allegation and the denial can both be true at the same time, giving the appearence that the charge is being denied, without the denial actually denying the substance of the change.

Let's break this one down, shall we?  First, she does not say: Corey Clark is lying about the alleged affair.  Nor is she saying I never coached him.  This leads one to ask: which statements is she referring to?  When taken literally, Ms. Abdul's denial could apply to anything Mr. Clark said in the interview.  Thus if he had said in the interview that he met her on a Tuesday and it was actually Thursday, both Clark and Abdul's statements could be true.

The point is this:  Look at every statement you see in the press closely--it could be that it isn't what it appears.

The Pentagon was recently embarrassed when it put out a pdf. version of the Sgrena report over the weekend not realizing that someone might be able to get around the electronic redactions.  Needless to say they did and the world is now privy to not only what we know about the insurgents, but also our organization and tactical responses to the insurgents.  Althought this story is getting big play, there is something larger that is being overlooked.

Why did the Pentagon release the report via pdf.?  Well according to an NPR story this morning, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said over the weekend that the report would normally have been released as a paper copy but Baghdad is so dangerous for reporters to move around in that sending it electronically made sense.

Baghdad is so dangerous that journalist can't physically get a Pentagon report?  Funny how that never quite makes it into the nightly news?

With a new Federal bank fraud investigation starting up, the gaping maw that is the Jack Abramoff scandal opens wider.  Who will fall in next?  GOP Congressman Bob Ney, perhaps?

"Mr. Speaker, how SunCruz Casinos and Gus Boulis conduct themselves with regard to Florida laws is very unnerving," Ney said in the March 30 Congressional Record. "I don't want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else . . . affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country."

"I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership," Ney stated in the record. Kidan's "track record as a businessman and a citizen lead me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment."

One thing is for sure, Gus Boulis has already fallen in:

A man in a BMW was driving down a quiet side street after an evening meeting at his Fort Lauderdale office when a car slowed to a stop in front of him. A second car boxed the BMW in from behind, then a dark Mustang appeared from the opposite direction. The Mustang's driver pulled alongside and pumped three hollow-point bullets into the BMW driver's chest.

Who said this?

The Senate, is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.

Was it Harry Reid?  Al Gore?  Howard Dean?

Nope--It was the Family Research Council, the sponsors of Justice Sunday--where scores of fundamentalist wingnuts demanded the end of the filibuster as a way to stop votes on Presidential nominees.

What was the context?

FRC was defending Republican Senators' efforts to filibuster the nomination of a gay man, James Hormel, to be ambassador to Luxembourg.  OK you commenters, start defending the indefensible.

Update Tuesday May 3 3:00 PM:  Commenters remarked that

"If the Republicans of the past 34 years agreed that this example was ethical, then they would have done a LOT of endless filibustering of Clinton's nominees. The fact that they didn't diminished your example to practically worthless"

Well, of course they did, when the practice of Blue slipping failed.  Note that the Republicans wouldn't even give hearings to five dozen of Clinton's appointees.  Even the White House acknowledged that the problem came from the Republican's despicable practices in the 1990's, according to then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales:

We are trying to work through some of the logjams, but there is a lot of bitterness," Gonzales told CNN. "This is a bit of a payback. I can't argue with some of their [the Democrats'] perceptions."

Gonzales noted that some Republican senators placed "holds" on Clinton judicial nominees, denying them a Judiciary Committee hearing or a floor vote for as long as four years.

 "That was wrong," he said. "That's not right. Part of this is based on the conduct of the Republican senators in the past. We had nothing to do with this problem. But it does affect us."

Republicans have also used the filibuster recently against judicial nominees:  Read, for example, the words of Sen. Smith of N.H. as he filbustered a 9th Circuit appointee, Richard Paez:

"But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)

According to Republicans, the right to an up-or down vote for judicial nominees extends only to Republican presidents.  Plain and simple, a power grab.