1st Republic 14th Star

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas attacked the New York Times for writing about the Bush administration's bank records tracking program. Roberts also called for a “formal damage assessment” to be done by Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

First, the program hasn't been as secret as the Bush people would have you believe -- they've bragged about it themselves.

Second, if Roberts wants to investigate intelligence disclosures that have had a negative impact on Amerfica's ability to fight the bad guys, he need look no further than the space between his chin and his nose:

[T]hree years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.

According to this item from Media Matters, plenty of conservative commentators are upset with the New York Times for revealing the Bush administration's secret program (do they have any other kind?) of warrantless spying on banking transactions. These conservative commentators even throw around terms like treason.

First, a reading of the first amendment to the US Constitution will show that what the Times did comes under the heading of freedom of the press.

Second, as I've mentioned before, these commentators cannot describe HOW this revelation aids America's enemies.

Third, a reading of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution provides the only legal definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Times did not declare war on the United States, and as I just mentioned, the conservative Times-bashers cannot explain HOW America's interests were harmed by the revelation of Bush's financial transaction spying program. If you can't demonstrate that there was a harm, how can claim someone at the Times committed an "overt act?"

Finally, while what the Times did does not come close to treason, here's something that did.

Funny I don't hear Bush, Cheney, their lap dogs in Congress or their conservative commentator allies complaining that leaking the identity of an honest to God spy who was working on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iran was a bad act, let alone an illegal one.

As far as I can tell, here's the Bush administration position when it comes to pretty much all of its policies:

If I tell you that I'm investigating you, then the terrorists win.

If I tell you why I'm investigating you, then the terrorists win.

If I have to tell you how the terrorists win because I'm investigating you, then the terrorists win.

The circular logic is ridiculous. HOW does looking at yours and my bank records help catch terrorists? HOW does spying on student protesters who don't like the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy help catch terrorists? Maybe if these guys spent some time explaining to us what they're doing or if they actually took the time to read the US Constitution, they'd have some credibility. But pardon me if I don't accept their "just tust me" explanation. Even if they did have the best of intentions, which I doubt, it's only one step from secretly investigating terrorists to secretly investigating the bank records of Democratic candidates or those who contribute to liberal causes or those with whom the cronies of Cheney and Bush have to compete for sweetheart government contracts.

Coulter on Hannity and Colmes, June 21, 2006:

By the way, if he did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002:

"Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in ‘hostile’ actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967."

For stupid douches like Coulter who have never worn the uniform "injured in hostile actions" means "wounded." "Wounded" means "Purple Heart."

Fuck off, Ann Coulter.

I call on MSNBC, NBC, Fox and all other outlets that give Coulter a forum to quit carrying her anti-American, anti-military, falsehood filled rants and raves.

Ann Coulter, June 21, 2006:

"I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging. In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!"

Ann Coulter should go fuck herself. To see how full of shit she is, just read this:

At a welcome home ceremony this week for (Staff Sgt. Randy) Myers and other troops from the Johnstown, Pa.-based 876th Engineer Battalion, the crowd cheered when a Murtha aide welcomed the troops on the congressman's behalf.

Myers said he backs Murtha, an opinion echoed by a number of other troops and their families. Several share his frustration with the conflict.

"I'm not sure we're doing a whole lot of good," Myers, 46, said of the U.S. presence in Iraq. "Everybody thinks we are. We're trying to, but we're not going to change what they want to do, and if they don't want to change, they're not gonna."

Said Sgt. 1st Class George Wozniak, 36, of Murtha: "He's definitely for a strong military and he definitely supports the troops."

Ann Coulter, as usual, has no idea what she's talking about. The rank and file soldiers (like me) who unlike Coulter have actually been to Iraq stand behind Murtha.

This story by Gordo on the Liberal Avenger site demonstrates how the Republican party purposefully disenfranchised thousands of black members of the military during the 2004 election.

Given how the GOP claimed (falsely, of course) during the 2000 election that Democrats wanted to disenfranchise military voters, the only thing worse than their cheating in this matter is their hypocrisy.

Let me show more reasons why Ann Coulter is a cancer on public discourse and must be stopped. In her latest column "Party of Rapist Proud to be Godless," she writes:

"...let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's (Clinton's) husband is a rapist."

Obviously these are not facts nor are they universally accepted. Let's dig a little deeper so you can see why I so despise this stupid douche.

On her first point, that liberals are godless (by which she means "not Protestant Christian") this can be easily debunked. First, you can go to this web site, "Liberalis: Liberal Christian Homepage." At Liberalis you can find information on such godless liberals as American Baptist Churches, USA; Disciples of Christ; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Presbyterian Church, USA; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; Unitarian Universalist Association,and Metropolitan Community Churches. Not for nothing is the Liberalis motto In veritate ambulare -- To walk in Truth.

Coulter's point is also easy to knock down by reviewing information about actual, liberal religious leaders. For instance, you can go to this page and see information about Bernard Lafayette, Jr., James Lawson, and John Lewis.

You can go to this page and see information about Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., an actual Christian minister and a liberal.

You can go to this page and read about Reverend Ralph Abernathy, one of King's closest advisors.

At this site, you can review the career of Reverend Joseph Lowery, another of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement.

You can go to this page and see information about Reverend William Sloan Coffin, the Yale University Chaplain who became a noted anti-Vietnam war activist.

There is information at this site about Father Robert Drinan, Congressman, law professor and advocate for social justice. Ann, just in case you're not sure, "Father" means that Drinan is a priest. In case you don't know what that is, "priest" is akin to "reverend," "pastor," and "minister."

There is an obvious liberal Christian tradition, but since it doesn't fit with Coulter's notions, she pretends it doesn't exist.

While I'm on the subject, let me suggest you review this story about how Ann Coulter LIED about belonging to a church in New York City. Who's really "godless" here?

On Coulter's second point, that Bill Clinton is a rapist -- this claim has also been debunked by all but the most rabid Clinton haters. If you don't believe me, start your own research by reading this story. If you're still unconvinced, I suggest you read "The Hunting of the President," by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. You might also watch the film of the same name.

In summary, I'm this rag must be stopped from spewing her venom -- freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to a forum and it's high time hers was taken away. F**K Off, Ann Coulter.

That stupid douche Ann Coulter has sunk to new depths.

If she had served one day in combat, she'd know good and damned well not to be talking about terms like "fragging." For someone like me who served in Iraq with Task Force Liberty, that term is especially inappropriate. If she had any couth or tact or civility or personal discipline she'd know better than to advocate the murder of a US Congressman.

When are Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, et. al. finally going to say enough is enough and stop giving this malevolent presence a forum? When will the outlets who carry her column finally send her packing? When is the allegedly liberal media going to upbraid chickenhawks like Coulter who trash with impunity the reputations of real American veterans like this and this and this and this and this and this?

You have to see this video of Bush's press conference today to believe it:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?

Q I can take them off.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m interested in the shade look, seriously.

Q All right, I’ll keep it, then.

THE PRESIDENT: For the viewers, there’s no sun. (Laughter.)

Q I guess it depends on your perspective. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Touche. (Laughter.)

For the record, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times is legally blind. He has a rare genetic disorder called Stargardt’s Disease. The disease is a form of macular degeneration that can be slowed “by wearing UV-protective sunglasses and avoiding exposure to bright light.”

Sure, Wallsten says he's not offended and that Bush didn't know he has vision problems. But is it unreasonable to expect the President of the United States to be more perceptive and aware?

How does Karl Rove dare to say stuff like this?

"In a speech to New Hampshire Republican officials here Monday night, the White House deputy chief of staff attacked Democrats who have criticized the U.S. war effort in Iraq, such as Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who he said advocate "cutting and running."

"They may be with you for the first shots," Rove said of such opponents. "But they're not going . . . to be with you for the tough battles."

Does Rove not know or not care that Murtha served in the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve for 37 years? Does he not know or not care that Murtha volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he performed admirably? Does he not know or not care that Murtha's awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal with "V" for Valor Device, and two Purple Hearts?

Does Rove not know or not care that Kerry served in the Navy for four years and the Naval Reserve for eight more? Does he not know or not care that Kerry volunteered twice for service in Vietnam? Does he not know or not care that Kerry volunteered for the Navy's most rigorous training and most dangerous assignments, including SERE School and command of a swift boat? Does he not know or not care that Kerry performed admirably and that his awards and decorations include the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal with "V" for Valor Device and three Purple Hearts?

Of course, Rove knows all these things -- they're easy to look up. And Rove surely knows his own dismal military record and that of his bosses -- link and link.

This is one more example of what's wrong with American politics. To win the Republicans smear their opponents and tear them down because they know Americans would never vote for the real Republican agenda of cheap labor, low taxes for rich people, and an all-powerful government that ignores rights, disregards laws, and exists simply to accumulate more power for those at its head.

Rove is so regularly deceitful, hypocritical and arrogant that it's a wonder men of honor who are on the receiving end of his smears don't punch him in the face in as public a way as possible. If another era a man like shameful excuse for a man like Rove would have found himself facing men like Murtha and Kerry on the field of honor.

Check out this portion of Powell's interview with AARP Magazine:

Q: Okay. But during the first Iraq war you gave some advice and [then Secretary of Defense] Dick Cheney said, "You can't say that, you're not the secretary of state."

A: Yeah, but I did, and kept doing it.

Q: My point is that later, when you were secretary of state, he reportedly ignored your advice and did end runs.

A: That's his privilege as Vice President. He was tough, demanding, and when he thought I was out of line, he snapped my garters. I guess that's not a politically correct thing to say. But when he thought I was out of line he would pull me up short. But guess what? He was my boss! He's supposed to, and let me know where the line is.

Since when did the vice president become the boss of the secretary of state?

Who nominates the secretary of state? Hint. Not the vice president.

Who can fire the secretary of state? Hint. Not the vice president.

If the secretary of state resigns, to whom does he report this fact? Hint. Not the vice president.

Maybe Powell should have had a civics lesson before attempting to carry out the nation's foreign policy.

In this piece by Media Matters, we find that commentators including Sandy Rios, Jack Burkman, Sean Hannity, Karen Hanretty, and Glenn Beck have excused or minimized the unconscionable passages from Ann Coulter's new book, some of which you can review in my previous post.

In this article we see that Coulter is unknown at the church she claims to attend. Since her most recent book is about how liberals hate God and church and religion while conservatives like her adore them, the facts that she's lying about her church membership and that she is as hypocritical as always are relevant.

And in this article on Brad Blog we find that Coulter not only committed a felony by knowingly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida, she's flagrantly lying -- lying not only about that election, but lying about where she lives, where she's registered to vote, and more. In addition, it appears that she's registered to vote in more than one place -- another problem for someone who claims that liberal voters are stupid while conservatives like her are geniuses.

Ann Coulter -- douche yesterday, douche today, and doubtless a douche tomorrow. If nothing else, she is the hallmark of consistency.

This stupid douche was on the Today Show being interviewed by Matt Lauer. On the subject of 9-11 widows, Lauer quizzed Coulter on her writing of this in her new book:

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process."

And this:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

Unbelievable. Where does this woman get the nerve? More importantly, who does anyone in the media give her any credence.

Ann, just go away.

What a piece of shit this guy is. Just read this column. Despite the fact that the guys Tyrrell supports successfully trashed John Kerry's reputation and stole the presidency from him, Tyrrell continues to pile on lie after lie and smear after smear. Tyrrell starts the column by calling John Forbes Kerry "Jean-Francois Kerry." Amazingly, the Tyrrells of the world still think they're smearing both Kerry and one of America's most reliable allies. Here's Tyrrell's next lie about the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

"These Swifties, as they are called, are the Vietnam vets who claimed that when they served with Kerry they found him to be a self-aggrandizing, self-indulgent showoff. All insist he exaggerated his feats of heroism, and some testify that he lied about his wounds and heroics. Many American voters were persuaded."

To put it mildly, this is a lie. The Swift Boat veterans for truth by and large DID NOT SERVE "WITH" Kerry! They served in the Navy, they served in Vietnam, some served in the same places Kerry did, some served in the same places at the same time Kerry did. But none of them were in Kerry's swift boat crew, or on his patrols. In fact, only one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Stephen Gardner, served in Kerry's crew. And Gardner wasn't present for the majority of events that earned Kerry his reputation for bravery, coolness under fire and selfless service.

The vast majority of the men who served with Kerry and who commanded him continue to speak highly of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."

— Fred Short

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."

— David Alston

"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."

— James Wasser

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."

Lonsdale is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- apparently consistency is not a requirement for membership.

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did." Still not convinced? Read this article by Jim Rassman, the Army Green Beret whose life John Kerry saved. Rassman recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star with "V" for Valor, a recommendation which was approved. Are you still not convinced? Read this piece by William Rood, a swift boat commander who ACTUALLY SERVED "WITH" Kerry. Read this and you'll know the true story of how John Kerry came to receive the Silver Star. In fact, though Kerry received the Silver Star, Admiral Zumwalt, the Chief of Naval Operations, wanted to recommend Kerry for a higher award, the Navy Cross. The Navy Cross is the second highest award -- only the Medal of Honor is higher. In fact, as Kerry continues to show, he was right about everything he said was in his military record -- he did go to Cambodia, he did earn three Purple Hearts, he did earn a Silver Star, he did earn a Bronze Star with "V" for Valor, he did not write fake after action reports to claim fake awards, he did not stage photos after combat, he did not shoot an unarmed chiled wearing a loincloth in the back.

Tyrrell claims Kerry got "an early exit from military service." In fact, when Kerry earned his Purple Hearts he was on his SECOND TOUR in Vietnam. On his first tour he'd served aboard ship and not on land. Instead of being proud of that service and returning home, Kerry VOLUNTEERED for training as a Swift Boat Commander, the most dangerous duty in the Navy. He was wounded three times. Navy rules at the time permitted sailors with three Purple Hearts to leave Vietnam ahead of schedule. After Kerry's achievements and narrow escapes, who could blame him?

Only a chickenhawk like Tyrrell who never served a day in uniform. Now that the guys Tyrrell supports have smeared Kerry and stolen the presidency from him, Tyrrell wonders why Kerry would continue to take on the misnamed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If you'd had your honor impugned, wouldn't you fight to get it back? Of course someone like Tyrrell, who has no honor, can't understand that sentiment.

Trust me. Read this article. Robert Kennedy Junior argues convincingly that the 2004 election was stolen and that John Kerry was the choice of a majority of American voters.

We already knew the Republicans cheated in 2002. Their operatives have gone and are going to jail for it.

We already knew the Republicans stole the presidency in 2000.

What's it going to take for the so called liberal mainstream media to wake up to the fact that Democrats are getting screwed and stop treating us like conspiracy theorists?

What's it going to take for Democrats to finally say "enough," and demand that the true winners of elections in America be sworn in to office?