"Liberal" Media ignores Bush LIE

I must be psychic -- I called this yesterday.

Bush LIED about timing of Treasury Secretary John Snow's resignation. The mainstream media, that group of supposedly Bush hating LIBERALS, ignored this blatanat deception. As always, The Dear Leader gets a free pass, continuing to excel in the game of appearing to be successful because he meets low expectations.

Bush lies -- when will impeachment start?

On May 25th, President Bush said that Treasury Secretary John Snow had not stated his intention to resign:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Secretary of Treasury Snow?

Q Has he given you any indication he intends to leave his job any time soon?…

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he’s doing a fine job.

In truth, John Snow HAD indicated he was leaving. Wait, there's more -- Bush had already seelcted Snow's replacement. Today, Tony Snow told reporters that Hank Paulson was offered the job on May 20 and accepted on May 21:

QUESTION: Do you have any tick tock on the Paulson…

SNOW: Yes. The tick tock is the two of them met on the 20th of May and there was a conversation. And Hank Paulson accepted the job a day later. That was subject to clearance. It does take time, especially for a Senate confirmable position, to complete those. So it did take time to get some of those clearances wrapped up.

Later in the briefing, Tony Snow admitted that Bush misled the public, claiming it was necessary to protect the financial markets.

The press response? I'm still waiting.

Once again, the rules are different -- lying is OK if you're a Republican.

Peter Daou of Salon gets it right

Read this Salon piece by Peter Daou. His essay explains clearly and concisely some of the same points I've been making about the invasion of Iraq, the Global War on Terrorism, and the lying Bush administration.

Daou's arguments are so clear and so well reasoned that only the most determined Bush supporters could fail to agree with them.

Freedom is on the march

We've turned a corner, blah, blah, blah. Just read this -- who in their right mind would think it was acceptable to kill someone for wearing shorts?

These kids better watch out -- they may be next.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Andrew Foster Altschul makes a point in this post that I've been wondering about for some time -- why do the Democrats in Congress insist on rolling over for the Bush Administration, even as the administration's corruption and cronyism becomes more and more obvious? Do these guys not know that the role of the opposition is to OPPOSE?

The latest example is the confirmation of General Michael Hayden to be head of the CIA. He has broken the law repeatedly, expressed a startling lack of knowledge about the content of the US Constitution, and demonstrated contempt and condescension for members of Congress. In short, he hasn't done one thing to merit confirmation. So why vote yes? On top of that, recent setbacks and revelations have turned public opinion against Bush -- in tactical terms, why give him a much needed for win when he has nothing to bargain with?

In addition, the Senate also voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, the latest in a series of underserved, unqualified crony appointments. The partisan hacks who carried out an unwarranted, partisan persecution of Bill and Hillary Clinton have been and continue to be rewarded, often with the support of Democrats. WHY?

Altschul gets it right when he concludes: "I'm not going to vote for people who don't seem to give a damn about anything. This isn't your last warning -- but it's close."

Dan Bartlett, professional liar

Dan Bartlett, The Dear Leader's senior counselor and a paid liar, was on CNN tonight. In response to a question about where Bush stands on the FBI raid of Congressman William Jefferson’s office. Bartlett said Bush believes it's important to pursue the investigation:

BARTLETT: The good thing is that all parties recognize it’s critically important that this investigation continue; that anytime that there’s any allegation of public corruption of a public official or a congressman, that we do everything we can to fully investigate this.

Oh, bullshit.

Bartlett on CNN, January 29, 2006:

BLITZER: What’s wrong with the White House releasing the photographs of the president with Jack Abramoff?

BARTLETT: Because they’re not relevant to the investigation. And one thing that the president argued this past week is that there is an important investigation. Here is a man who has admitted guilt to some egregious conduct and behavior in the course of several years. It’s important that the prosecutors get to the bottom of that case and follow that case wherever it may take them. But the fact that the president has taken a picture or two or five or however many it may be at fundraisers or other events is not related to the investigation.

Obviously the only investigations Bush is interested in pursuing are those that don't involve Republican members of Congress, the people in his administration, or Bush himself. Like this. Or this. This, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. And that's just for starters.

God, what a hypocrite!

TSA badges and uniforms are missing

Unreal. I'm through listening to George W. Bush or anyone else who claims this "administration" is the only one that can save America from the terrorists.

Now we know the reason for Hastert's "outrage"

"The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from high level government sources. Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government...."

Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with Hastert's feigned outrage over the FBI's search of the offices of Representative William Jefferson?

More "where's the liberal media?"

Reporters who play fast and loose with the facts so they can smear Democrats and leave Republicans unscrutinized.

Allegedly liberal commentator who gives a pass to Republican talking points repeaters Hume and Cameron.

Fox News anchor who calls a governor's race in which the Democratic candidate has a 16 point lead "a bit of a nail biter."

CNN's Casey Wian appears on Lou Dobbs's show, airs ridiculous story on illegal immigration and backs it up with "statistics" and "graphics" from a well known racist organization.

Guy who takes money from oil companies poses as objective scientist on Fox News to smear Al Gore and compares him to Nazis.

"Liberal bias in the media" is a myth.

Pat Boone, idiot, hypocrite

Pat Boone was quoted today offering his definition of free speech. In this piece the World Net Daily columnist and 1950s icon beats up on the Dixie Chicks because they dare to be critical of The Dear Leader.

"You can disagree. You can express your disagreement, but don't attack the man who is your elected leader and say he's not owed any respect at all."

Now I figured Pat Boone was likely to be a hypocrite and that if I researched far back enough I'd find that he made disrespectful comments about a President who wasn't George W. Bush. I was right. However, I didn't have to go back that far -- only to January 2006.

The lesson of Pat Boone? You cannot criticize Reagan or Bush -- if you do you're a traitor. You CAN and SHOULD criticize Johnson, Carter and Clinton.

How about a little consistency here?

And while I'm on the subject of hypocrisy, look at the photo at the top of this column, and then look at these rules on use and display of the American flag. What a shameless huckster!

Boone's idea of free speech makes me shudder.

What liberal media?

The panelists on the Chris Matthews Show launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Al Gore. Matthews parises the attackers and no one defends Gore.

What liberal media? Thanks to Media Matters for keeping an eye on the liars.

"Fuzzy math, fuzzy math."

Take a look at this Iraq Index from the Brookings Institution. The numbers don't lie. In all these categories things in Iraq are worse now than they were before the US invasion.

What's the Dear Leader to do? The same thing he did to Al Gore when Gore told the truth in 2000 -- accuse him of lying with a catchy phrase. That's right, all Bush can do in the face of the truth is claim "fuzzy math."

Ann Coulter is still a stupid douche

If you don't believe me, just check out this clip of her the Fox "News" network's HANNITY and Colmes show. (Thanks to Crooks and Liars.)

Among other lies, distortions and inane comments, Coulter smears Congressman and retired Marine Corps Reserve Colonel John Murtha, who served in the military for 37 years, including service in Vietnam. In fact, he was the first Vietnam veteran to win election to Congress.

According to Coulter the circumstances under which Murtha received the Purple Heart are in dispute and he should release the relevant records. In her mission to defend The Dear Leader at all costs, Coulter goes on to completely denigrate Murtha's military career.

Here are the facts about Murtha's record -- he joined the Marines in the early 1950s and served as a drill instructor before attending Officer Candidate School. He transferred to the Reserves and worked his way through positions of increasing rank and responsibility. He volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he served as a regimental intlligence officer. He fought valiantly, he was wounded, and he received awards and decorations to recognize his service, including two Purple Hearts and Bronze Star with "V" for valor device. Murtha also received the highest evaluations on his performance appraisals. He continued his military service until retiring as a Colonel in 1990. At his retirement Murtha received the Distinguished Service Medal. The DSM is the military's fourth highest award and is presented for significant accomplishments over a long period in positions of great rank and responsibility -- it's not given lightly to officers whose accomplishments are in doubt. The facts are clear, Murtha's record is known, and except for the sniping of a few political adversaries, no one questions his accomplishments as a military officer. If you have questions, read Murtha's autobiography, in which he reproduces the documents Coulter says she believes need to be released.

But here's the real reason decided to write about Coulter's latest appearance on HANNITY and Colmes. Watch what happens as Coulter rants -- the supposed liberals on this program, Colmes and Susan Estrich, are mute as Coulter lies, spins, distorts and makes unsupportable claims about Democrats and liberals.

Is this really the best liberals can do when it comes to slapping down such blatant, obvious lies?

Vox Day, Whacko, World Net Daily

Vox Day at World Net Daily is just nuts. Here's what he wrote about President Bush's recent border and immigration proposals:

...he (Bush) lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

First, how about that choice of words? "rid themselves of 6 million Jews?" This idiot's phrasing makes it seem like the Germans had a real problem and took reasonable measures to solve it. He definitely doesn't make The Final Solution seem like what it was -- out and out genocide.

In addition, this "writer" makes a poor comparison -- unless he's advocating that the United States should round up illegal immigrants and ship them somewhere without planning for logistical requirements en route, including food, water, medical attention, places to sleep, bathrooms and showers, etc., then his use of Nazi deportation of Jews to death camps as an illustration of his point is not apt.

What a whacko.

Gore doesn't say no...

Therefore the answer must be yes. He's thinking about running for President in 2008.

What more do you need to know? He's ready to run. He's qualified. He knows what needs to be done. And he won once before.

Get on the bandwagon now.

The NSA data mines to catch terrorists? Bullshit.

The NSA says it's compiling a data base of all incoming and outgoing phone calls as a way to catch terrorists. Bullshit. As this story shows, the Bush administration is really out to eliminate political dissent.

You read that right -- if you are a whistle blower alerting the American people to illegal activity by their government, you can expect to be investigated, arrested and jailed.

If you are the President, the Vice President or a member of their staff and you leak the identity of a covert CIA agent as a way to retaliate against political dissent, well that's OK.

And speaking of Valerie Plame Wilson, we now know that leaking her identity was done by Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby. So here's what I want to know -- when will someone call Bush to task for lying about this leak? He said he had no idea who did it and that the special prosceutor had to have the time to investigate the matter and make a determination about what happened and who did it. Well, Bush knows what happened and who was responsible, because it was him. Clearly he knows that leaking Valerie Wilson's identity was wrong -- if he thought he was right he wouldn't have denied doing it.

If Bill Clinton could be impeached for allegedly lying about having sex with a consenting adult, how can Bush and Cheney not be impeached for leaking a secret that was important to our national security and our ability to combat terrorism, and then repeatedly lying about it?

Come and get me, NSA.

Oh, check out Scott Bieser, where I got this excellent cartoon.

Bush administration sinks even lower

Look into the pit. The Bush administration sinks to new lows when it comes to ignoring the Constitution and lying. They've been building a database that will track the majority of incoming and outgoing phone calls made within the United States, by Americans, to Americans. This is illegal. This is unconstitutional. This is expending time and resources on something that will not catch or kill terrorists. This is expending time and resources on an illegal method for spying on AMERICAN CITIZENS.

This story indicates that the people running the program refused to go to the FISA Court or ask the US Attorney general for an advisory opinion precisely because they knew this data compiling is illegal and they didn't want to be told to stop.

Isn't this the very definition of a dictatorship?

THIS administration claims Homeland Security success?

Check out this story about the sanitation worker who found in the trash documents with all the details of President Bush's trip to Florida -- dates, times, locations, the order of the vehicles in the motorcade, the order of the helicopters in flight, etc.

You can't be serious -- if anyone made an effort to obtain documents like these, say to plan an assassination, he'd be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. Yet someone in the administration that claimed to be mature, responsible, and capable of defending America from terrorists literally left these sensitive documents laying around where anyone could pick them up.

Or did someone leave these documents in the trash on purpose? Maybe someone with access to these papers put them in the trash for a conspirator to find, and the garbageman simply happened to pick them up first. If that was the case, this administration would have truly shown itself to be incapable of defending America from anything.

Bush HUD Secretary admits law violation

The newest Bush administration law breaker or liar is Secretary of Housing and Development Alphonso Jackson. An article in the Dallas Business Journal quotes him:

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

If Jackson did what he says he did, by his own admission he's broken the law.

Usually tomorrow's story would be that Jackson was claiming to have been misquoted or taken out of context or that he misspoke or that he wants to leave to spend more time with his family. Not this time. Instead, a Jackson spokesman defends him by saying the HUD Secretary made it up. That's right -- the new version is that Jackson's story was "anecdotal" and meant as a dramatic illustration that was not meant to be taken literally.

Please! remember when these same Republicans claimed moral superiority over Clinton and Gore and Kerry and used terms like "flip flop" and "serial exaggerator?"

Yet another Bush administration crony gets caught either committing a felony or lying. Whichever it is, he nees to leave office now.

George W. Bush recycles CIA nomination speech

I was tipped off to this tonight while watching The Daily Show.

Bush on the nomination of General Michael Hayden as CIA Director, May 8, 2006:

"He's the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation's history."

Bush on the nomination of Porter Goss, August 10, 2004:

"He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history."

This "administration" is, at best, going through the motions. At worst (and I believe the worst), Bush and everyone around him are unmatched in their incompetence. They can't even write a boilerplate speech without plagiarizing themselves.

General Hayden for CIA Director? No, no, no.

The Current Occupant of the White House has nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Hayden currently serves as Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Office of National Intelligence.

Everyone should know about General Hayden's shaky grasp of the Constitution. As I wrote back in January:

And the idiot general Bush trotted out to defend this unconstitutional spying program, General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, revealed that while the 4th Amendment to the Constitution reads "no warrantless searches," that's not what it means. So much for "strict constructionism."

That's right -- the guy who's supposed to take over the CIA apparently doesn't know that the standard for obtaining warrants is "probable cause," a higher standard that what's "reasonable."

Then again, maybe Hayden isn't stupid, but simply willful -- perhaps the problem is that because he's willing to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans in America, he's willing to ignore the Constitution to do it.

Larry Laughlin, Associated Press Weasel

In this story by Shay Totten of the Vermont Guardian, we discover the reason for Chris Graff's firing in March. Graff had worked for the Associated Press for nearly 30 years and had been Vermont's Bureau Chief for most of that time.

As you read the termination letter sent to Graff by Larry Laughlin, his New Hampshire-based supervisor, it should become apparent that Laughlin is, in fact, a weasel.

The first reason given for Graff's firing was that he had allowed an editorial by US Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont) to be distributed to AP's subscribers. Laughlin claims "your decision to allow an elected official’s editorial comments to run unfettered on the wire March 8 compromised the integrity and impartiality of the AP’s news report."

In fact, as the Vermont Guardian reports, AP allowed a similar column by Leahy to go out on the wire in 2005. Graff wasn't fired then. Leahy's piece was part of a package of editorials and stories sent out as part of Sunshine Week, the week set aside by newspapers each year to highlight the importance of open access to public records and government documents.

The second reason given for firing Graff was that he allowed reporter Dave Gram to contribute a chapter to a book about Howard Dean. At the time, Dean was a leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

But, as the Vermont Guardian points out, lots of reporters contributed to the book on Dean -- Darren Allen, State House bureau for the Rutland Herald and Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, John Dillon, a reporter for Vermont Public Radio, and David Moats, the editorial page editor of the Rutland Herald all contributed to the Dean book. In addition, the book was published by R. John Mitchell, who sits on the board of the Associated Press and its human resources subcommittee.

Clearly, Graff's firing was for reasons that had nothing to do with the sham excuses given in the letter. That makes Larry Laughlin a weasel. Worse, a lying weasel. Chris Graff deserved better.

The Unclassified Media Project

I really, really liked this video from the Unclassified Media Project. It goes on for a while, but if you watch the whole thing I think you'll agree with me.

I hope this is the first of what will be many.

Lamar Alexander panders shamelessly

US Senator Lamar Alexander (Whore, Tennessee) explains his proposal to have the national anthem sung only in English, May 2, 2006:

"We have the common principles that we debate here in the Senate. We have our common language, English. And we ought to encourage it, not undercut it."

Alexander, September 13, 1995:

GOP Presidential hopeful Lamar Alexander lambasted Sen. Robert Dole Wednesday night saying that the senator “showed no respect” for Hispanics when Dole hinted that the U.S. should move towards an “English only” policy. Alexander, campaigning in Puerto Rico for the first time, said he was a “staunch” supporter of bilingual education and urged Hispanic parents to allow their children to learn two languages. “My dream is that every child in America grows up learning two languages,” the former governor of Tennessee said.

Talk about shameless. Is this guy really so stupid that he thinks average, everyday Americans have no memories? Worse, does he think we can't do research?

Run government like a business? Are you kidding me?

In this terrific article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman list the 10 worst corporations of 2005. In this piece you'll find toxic waste, inefficiency, fraud, tax evasion, purposely ruining the health of unknowing Americans, killing poor people, and workplace accidents as a matter of routine.

My suggestion: Remember this article the next time someone tells you the government should be run like a business.

What Liberal Media?

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, the so-called liberal media continues to praise President Bush's rather tame, rather lame performance at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner last weekend. At the same time, they virtually ignore Stephen Colbert's skewering of both the Bush administration and mainstream media journalists.

You might think that the main speaker at this annual event doesn't normally receive a lot of media coverage, so ignoring Colbert is typical. Not so. In 1996 when Don Imus delievered a ham-handed performance in which he was critical of all things Clinton, it was played up in the media for days.

Clearly media outlets in America are determined to always give Bush the benefit of the doubt and always make him look better than he is, while also paying no attention to anything critical of him. So I ask again -- what liberal media?