Rick Santorum, March 3, 2005:

Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable," Santorum said in a statement yesterday. "These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon.

Rick Santorum, May 19, 2005:

The audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Audacity indeed. 

I've been intrigued by talk of some sort of Centrist compromise to take the Nuclear Option off the table but when I read the details given by this article I wonder what kinda moderate Democrat would go for this:

Senate centrists hope to avoid both options. If they can get 12 senators — six Republicans and six Democrats — to agree on a deal they can prevent Frist from banning judicial filibusters and keep Reid from filibustering Bush appointees.

Under the most recent Republican-crafted offer, Democrats would have to allow the confirmation of six Bush nominees: Owen, Brown, and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, as well as Michigan nominees Susan Neilson, David McKeague and Richard Griffin. The Senate would scuttle the nominations of Idaho lawyer William Myers and Michigan nominee Henry Saad, aides said.

But more importantly, both sides would have to operate on "good faith" when it comes to future nominations. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are being held behind closed doors.

So basically the Republicans get the nominees they want, with the help of a handful of Democrats and we're suppose to believe that Republicans will then act in "good faith" during future nominations when their actions during this fiasco and the previous fifteen years suggest absolutely no capacity for acting in good faith.

Why would any self-respecting Democrat, whether liberal, moderate or conservative, go for a solution that only encourages future Republican efforts to steamroll them over judicial nominees yet alone agree to a so-called compromise that futhers the bogus spin that Democratic objections to these nominees are without merit and merely partisan obstruction?

Update:  Looks like Matt Yglesias over at Tapped agrees that compromises like the one above are boneheaded and ass-backwards.

From Michael Terry of Kansas, we learn that Jesse Jackson is a racist.

I guess Michael has a point, because it appears from the post that Jesse has personally been calling him and his entire family and race a racist for years:

As a Caucasian man I have grown tired and weary of your use of the word “racist” in relation to me, my family, my ancestors, and my nation. It has not only become trite, but now I find it extremely offensive.

Apparently, Mr. Terry thinks Jesse should answer to him:

Will you, or can you answer the above questions? I think not. You’ll merely cry and whine about how negroes are victims of some invisible evil white cabal who have nothing better to do with their allotted time on this earth than make the lives of negroes as miserable as they possibly can. I do wish you would name the members of this mysterious cabal and get it over with and stop yelping like a dog that got whacked on the nose with a newspaper for crapping on the carpet.

You see, according to Mr. Terry, the problem is that non-whites have no real heroes.

Why is it that negroes, like Hispanics, don’t have too many heroes to emulate like whites do? Mexicans always bring up Poncho Villa and negroes Booker T. Washington. Caucasians have so many people of their own race to emulate it’s hard to pick one. I won’t list them here because I don’t have the time or space.

You see, Jesse just doesn't have the right attitude:

Instead of condemning Caucasians you should be thanking them. You could be in Africa chasing elephants or monkeys with a blow-gun or spear to get your dinner for the day.

Mr. Terry is right about one thing.  Racism never does go out of style, does it?

If you're like me and have been dumbfounded by the mainstream media's total inability to provide even the hint of an explanation as to how the Republicans intend to break Senate rules to do away with the filibuster for judicial nominees yet alone have anybody explain why it is wrong, I refer you to this op-ed by a Vanderbilt University Law Professor.

And if you're still confuse check out Norm Ornstein here and here.

Bill Frist, on the floor of the Senate, on his filibuster of Clinton Appeals Court nominee Richard Paez:

SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.

The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill - to defeat - to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.

Really, Bill?  To paraphrase a great blogger, Sadly, no!  Paez had been pending for four years when Frist voted against clouture.  Here's a record of the vote. The sponsor of the filibuster, Sen. Smith of New Hampshire made it clear why they were voting to block the nomination:  to block it:

Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) today led the fight on the Senate floor to block the nominations of two activist Clinton judicial nominees.

I watched this fool debate Byrd and Reid on the same issue last week.  The argument was all hot air and nothing else.  At core, the man knows what he is doing is morally wrong.

 

Watching this video of John Bolton in action, it makes you wonder what he hopes to accomplish as Ambassador to the UN.

Powerline on Abramoff:

In a spirit of honesty, however, I admit that I'd like to see Abramoff left alone in large part because, instead of spending the millions of dollars he raked in on Ferraris and yachts, he lavishly spent it on causes that I think are good and important.

. . . Yes, I have a conflict of interest — and such conflicts, arising from one's political or moral value system, can be more powerful than conflicts that arise from the scent of money. I wish Abramoff's tormentors would be similarly honest. Let them admit their own wish to see the political consequences of the Abramoff affair that they, simulating disinterest, now predict.

Corruption in Congress needs to be punished, whomever does it.  I guess the argument is that if Democrats oppose naked corruption, they should be stopped from ending it because Mammon is serving God now.  And the Republicans wonder how they got here.

As for me wishing poltical consequences--you bet.  Because the party in power is a party of power walking wrapped in the stolen robes of saints.  As corrupt as some Democrats have been, they knew what they were.  That doesn't justify what they did, it just makes the sins of the current rulers so much worse.

We'll be seeing more of this bitter invective as the Republican machine heads for its inevitable crash.  What we won't see is an admission of truth:  that these Republicans never let a moral belief get in the way of the means.

Finally, an Iraqi party gets it:

The meeting noted that the stalemate in forming the government has significant meanings, as it continues under two contradictions: with the occupation forces, on one hand, and with the anti-people and anti-democratic forces, on the other hand. Two years after the fall of Saddam's regime, our country is still in a state of seeking an alternative.  It is an alternative that our party, along with all the forces that truly aspire to liberation and a free dignified life, strive to be the national democratic alternative: a democratic, federal, pluralistic alternative, and state institutions  based on justice and the rule of law".

"The struggle is currently taking place between competing forces and groups, against a background of the negative dimension of elections, manifested in sectarian-nationalist polarization and lack of political and election awareness. This struggle is about visions for Iraq's political future. This is taking place under an unstable balance of forces caused by the lack of participation of broad sections of the population in elections due to the deteriorating security situation in some areas and the refusal by some forces to take part. This indicates a potential re-alignment of forces in the forthcoming phase of the political process".

"Increasing numbers of the electorate now realize, amid feelings of frustration and bitterness, that the bickering between the winners is over the distribution of positions and cabinet posts, in accordance with the infamous rule of dividing up these positions along sectarian-nationalist lines. This rule should have been brought to an end by the elections, rather than being reinforced, in a stark sign of utter disregard for the people's interests, their needs and aspirations.

Too bad they are the Iraqi Communist Party.  Man, when the Communists have a clearer view of what's going on than the U.S. of A., you know we are screwed.

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!