This is what they mean by "Law and Order" Republican

Marko Georgiev photo for The New York Times

Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican candidate for state attorney general, arrives at the Maestros Catering Hall for a meeting with New York Hispanic Clergy Organization today in the Bronx.

I used to like Jeanine Pirro. When the Republican Westchester County District Attorney used to appear on TV she seemed smart, capable and telegenic.

Boy was I wrong. First her challenge to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) imploded on the launch pad in what will likely go down in history as the single worst campaign kickoff of all time.

Now she's under federal investigation. Why? Apparently she was plotting to illegally spy on her husband in an attempt to catch him with another woman. Her accomplice? Former New York City Police Commissioner, almost-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and felon Bernard Kerik. Because Kerik was under investigation his phones were tapped by authorities their conversations were recorded.

These are really ugly calls, too. Complaining about a Kerik associate who's squeamish abiut planting a bug on the boat of Pirro's husband, the conversation unfolds this way:

Pirro: "We can just simply say, if there is an issue, that I am redecorating it for our anniversary.” She complains that Kerik’s man is, “uncomfortable with that.”

Kerik: “But Janine, I’m having the same f------g problem with everybody… everybody is panic stricken because it’s you… I’ve gone out on a limb… I had two other people looking at this… it’s a problem.”

Pirro: “What am I supposed to do, Bernie? Watch him f--k her every night? What am I supposed to do?… I can go on the boat, I’ll put the f-----g thing on myself.”

Minutes later, Kerik apparently calls a contact at Giuliani Partners, former mayor Rudy Giuliani’s consulting firm, asking him to find a recording device.

I have to believe the race Pirro switched to after screwing up her Senate candidacy, the New York Attorney General's position is in the bag for Democrat Andrew Cuomo, even if he does no campaigning between now and election day. In fact, maybe Pirro will join Kerik in jail.

Here's what's wrong with the American media

Check out this week's Newsweek covers. In South America, Asia and Europe, the featured story is what's going wrong in Afghanistan. But on the cover of the US version, we're treated to a story on Annie Leibovitz and her photographs of celebrities.

Does anyone wonder why the Bush administration gets away with blatant lying? I suggest it's because the people's watchdogs don't do their jobs.

GOP US House candidate -- Major League Asshole

In a half hour radio debate that aired Sunday Illinois Republican State Senator Peter Roskam used the phrase "cut and run" while arguing against the Iraq war position of Democratic nominee Tammy Duckworth:

"I do think finishing well is a notion that resonates well in the 6th District," Roskam responded. "The 6th Congressional District is not a cut-and-run district."

According to his campaign biography, Roskam is a lawyer who worked for Congressman Henry Hyde (whom Duckworth and Roskam are vying to replace) and former Congressman and current defendant Tom DeLay before serving in the Illinois House and later the state Senate. He has no military experience.

Democratic nominee Tammy Duckworth, a former executive for Rotary International can't "cut and run" anywhere.

She lost both her legs.

While flying a helicopter.

For the United States Army.

In Iraq.

That's right, Duckworth is a Major in the Illinois Army National Guard and a veteran of the Iraq war. In 2004 an rocket propelled grenade downed the helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth lost both legs and her right arm was shattered.

That's why Peter Roskam is a major league asshole.

George W. Bush -- Unbelievable

In a September 24 CNN interview with alleged journalist Wolf Blitzer, alleged President George W. Bush had this to say about the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war–if not already a civil war–We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that’s the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there’s also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy. (emphasis added)

Well, the current figures show more military members have died since September 11, 2001 than died at the World Trade Center ON September 11, 2001. That's right -- there are more than 2,974 dead American service members since September 11, 2001. In addition, more than 19,000 have been wounded.

In addition, Iraqi civilians are dying at the rate of 100 per day -- over 3,000 a month. And no one really knows how many civilians are dying in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is resurgent, Osama is living in Pakistan unmolested by alleged ally Pakistan, Bush can't decide whether to leave him alone or kill him, Iraq continues to degenerate into civil war, and the mere fact that the US is in Iraq has INCREASED the the threat of terrorism. The only real question here is whether the Bush administration are incompetent administrators or crony rewarding malevolent profiteers.

And the best "Lieutenant" and "fighter pilot" Bush can do is call the sacrifice of the lives and limbs of America's best and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the sacrifice (and waste) of trillions of dollars a "comma?"

Unbelievable.

The real Bush agenda

Check out this article from last week's Washington Post. Apparently the way to get hired to work on Iraq's rebuilding and to get rebuilding contracts was to be a Bush loyalist. If you wanted to hire someone to, let's say rebuild the electrical power system of your country or one you were occupying, wouldn't you hire someone who had previously built electrical power systems? Not the Bush administration, whose motto should be corruptus in extremis. No, with Team Bush, what matter is did you vote for Bush, did you campaign for Bush, did you contribute to Bush, how much did you contribute to Bush, how much are you contributing to Bush and how much will you contribute to Bush?

The only thing worse than this blatant money grubbing in the guise of foreign policy is the ho-hum reaction of the media to these revelations. I want you to imagine for just a minute that it was Bill Clinton who was being accused of this large scale fraud and thievery and partisan profiteering. Do you think the allegedly liberal media would be yawning over it like they do every single time Bush and his supporters get caught with their hand in the till? If you think Clinton would be treated with the same hands off attitude Bush is, I direct you here, here, here, here and here.

John Yoo, Douchebag of Liberty

In this ridiculous op-ed piece from yesterday's New York Times, University of California at Berkeley law professor and former US Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo demonstrates himself to be either a liar or someone unqualified to teach law. Yoo is responsible for the Yoo Doctrine, the blatantly unconstitutional Bush power grab known as the Unitary Executive Authority.

To start, Yoo's editorial is titled "How the Presidency Regained Its Balance." I suggest that what the Bush administration has done to accumulate power to itself, reduce Congress to a pack of fawning suck ups, and prevent or ignore judicial oversight can hardly be described as balance -- in terms of three separate but co-equal branches of government, the scales have clearly tipped to the executive. In fact, the Bush administration shows many of the hallmarks of a dictatorship.

Here's Yoo's first paragraph:

Five years after 9/11, President Bush has taken his counterterrorism case to the American people. That’s because he has had to. This summer, a plurality of the Supreme Court found, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that Congress must explicitly approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists. So Mr. Bush has proposed legislation seeking to place the tribunals, and other aggressive antiterrorism measures, on a sounder footing.

That's just bullshit.

In fact, the Hamdan decision explicitly indicated that the tribunals the Bush administration had already planned to implement were illegal because the administration exceeded the authority it had been granted by Congress. In addition, the Court also explicitly stated that the proposed tribunals violate the law of war, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Here's more Yoo:

Thus the administration has gone to war to pre-empt foreign threats. It has data-mined communications in the United States to root out terrorism. It has detained terrorists without formal charges, interrogating some harshly. And it has formed military tribunals modeled on those of past wars, as when we tried and executed a group of Nazi saboteurs found in the United States.

More bullshit.

No one outside the Bush administration believes invading Iraq had anything to do with a real pre-emptive strike against a real threat. It was clearly an already decided upon course of action searching for a rationale to justify it. The terrorists who attacked the US and the threat that needed to be pre-empted was al Qaeda, which was in AFGHANISTAN. In fact, the phony pre-emptive strike against Saddam caused personnel, supplies, and equipment that were being used to attack al Qaeda to be diverted to Iraq.

How do you know the Bush administration is lying about why we invaded Iraq? For one thing, their rationale keeps changing. Was it to pre-empt an attack by a WMD-toting madman, to remove a corrupt dictator, to stabilize world oil supplies and prices, or for some other reason. They change their story every time more facts become known.

This administration resorted to exposing a covert CIA operative (who was working on the issue of WMDs in Iraq and Iran), lied about Saddam's attempt to acquire uranium for nuclear weapons, and lied about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. In addition, while we're still fighting in Iraq, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and the Bush administration is actively resisting making an effort to kill or capture him.

More Yoo:

Thus the administration has gone to war to pre-empt foreign threats. It has data-mined communications in the United States to root out terrorism. It has detained terrorists without formal charges, interrogating some harshly. And it has formed military tribunals modeled on those of past wars, as when we tried and executed a group of Nazi saboteurs found in the United States.

Oh, please. Iraq was not a threat. No one objects to data mining -- we object to an administration that does it without oversight and does it without attempting to focus the effort on actual terrorist suspects or plots. In addition, the Nazi saboteurs Yoo writes of were captured in the United States and there was no question that they were spies -- the evidence of their guilt was blatantly apparent. This is in contrast to what the Bush administration has done in holding hundreds of people who have not been accused of anything and against whom there is no evidence of guilt. If they're guilty of spying or murder or anything else, put them on trial and prove it.

More Yoo:

To his critics, Mr. Bush is a “King George” bent on an “imperial presidency.” But the inescapable fact is that war shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive. Harry Truman sent troops to fight in Korea without Congressional authority. George H. W. Bush did not have the consent of Congress when he invaded Panama to apprehend Manuel Noriega. Nor did Bill Clinton when he initiated NATO’s air war over Kosovo.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

As this article shows, Truman was on solid ground. The 1945 Senate debates on ratification of the U.N. Charter and the House and Senate debates on passage of the U.N. Participation Act clearly indicate that Congress understood it was empowering the President to use military force in accordance with decisions of the U.N. Security Council without having to return to Congress for approval of each specific operation.

George H.W. Bush invaded Panama in 1989 ostensibly to bring an indicted Manual Noriega to justice. Bush also claimed the necessity of exigent circumstances, arguing that U.S. nationals were being attacked by Panama's army. In addition, the US did not stay in Panama for years on end without identifying an achievable objective. You can argue about whether Noriega should have been indicted or whether US nationals were really being attacked in Panama, but you can't argue that the senior Bush didn't make an argument that for taking immediate action of a limited duration.

Bill Clinton claimed exigent circumstances, too -- the immediate need to intervene and stop genocide. In addition, US action in Yugoslavia was not an invasion -- it was an effort to force the warring powers to stop fighting. Finally, it's worth pointing out that many people who claimed Clinton did not have the power to take this action now argue that BUSH does have it -- hypocrites all. See here for one especially egregious example.

More from Professor Yoo:

The White House has declared that the Constitution allows the president to sidestep laws that invade his executive authority. That is why Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements — more than any previous president — reserving his right not to enforce unconstitutional laws.

This is pure bullshit. The President does not have the unilateral authority to determine which laws are Constitutional, therefore he does not have the authority to refuse to enforce a law simply because HE decides it's not Constitutional. The accepted process, as every eighth grader knows, is that if Congress passes a bill and the President disagrees, he issues a veto. Congress can then attempt to override the veto and enact the law without presidential approval. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court determines whether the law under question is in line with the Constitution. One party refusing to follow the law and hiding behind "fuck you, Congress" signing statements do not enter into the equation.

Yoo:

Unfortunately, much of the public misunderstands the true role of the executive branch — in large part because today’s culture transforms presidents into celebrities. On TV, a president’s every move seems central to the universe, so he has the image of power that far exceeds the reality.

This just pisses me off. Just because the public disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily follow that the public misunderstands -- how fucking arrogant.

The rest of Yoo's editorial is in the same vein -- go ahead and read it for yourself and see if you can get through it without losing your temper at this prick's lies and condescension.

Yoo is so wrong he's either stupid or lying on purpose -- that's why I call John Yoo a Douchebag of Liberty.

Bush gets it wrong, Landrieu gets it right

George W. Bush speaking to reporters, 13 September 2006:

"This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

George W. Bush speaking to American Legion Convention, August 2006:

"...we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account."

George W. Bush, speaking in March 2002:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana speaking on the Senate floor today after listening to Republican tool Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign accuse Democrats of being soft on terrorism:

"In light of the rantings that went on for 30 minutes by two colleagues from the other side, I'd like to state for the record that America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden. Who captured a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did. Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most. Americans are most certainly tired of leadership that despite documenting mistake after mistake after mistake, even of their own party admitting mistakes, never admit they do anything wrong. That's the kind of leadership Americans are tired of. I'm not going to sit here as a Democrat and let the Republican leadership come to the floor and talk about Democrats not making us safe. They're the ones in charge and Osama bin Laden is still at loose."

I've always said that Mary Landrieu is hot. Now I like her even more.

CBS News shows liberal bias

As part of Katie Couric's taking over last week of the anchor desk at the CBS Evening News, the program began carrying a nightly segment called "Free Speech." So far Rush Limbaugh and Rudy Giuliani got air time to broadcast their views on the Bush administration's policies (they're for them, no surprise), but no Democrats or liberals have been on to offer their views -- Morgan Spurlock talked about the lack of civil discourse, Sonia Nazario offered her comments about the plight of mothers from Central America who leave their children behind when they come to the US to work, and comedy writer Jim Twohie discussed the length of Congressmen's vacations.

Why is this show airting the views of only pro-Bush political commentators? Don't Don't Katie Couric and the rest of the staff at CBS know they're supposed to be airing pieces with liberal bias? They need to do a better job of following their liberal talking points, otherwise the liberal media elite will revoke their memberships.

Katie Couric -- proud member of the liberal media

In a September 6 interview with President Bush at the White House, new CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric revealed that she's a member of the ultra liberal media establishment that will stop at nothing to make George W. Bush look bad:

COURIC: Conversely, I guess, Mr. President, while people admire so much your ability to adhere to your principles, there is also criticism, as you say, there will always be critics --

BUSH: Yeah.

COURIC: -- that -- that -- you're inflexible and that your position doesn't change with changing circumstances.

I think it's high time these liberal journalists stop giving President Bush such a hard time and start giving him credit for all the things that are going well. If President Bush has to keep dodging tough questions and hardball interviews like this, it will only give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Tom DeLay -- once a cheater, always a cheater

What the hell is this? Tom DeLay, the disgraced and indicted former Congressman, is attempting to rig the voting on the inane ABC reality show "Dancing with the Stars."

And why is DeLay attempting to put in the fix? Because one contestant, country music singer Sara Evans, is a conservative darling, while one of the other contestants, Jerry Springer, is a Democrat who hosts a tald radio show on liberal Air America.

I noticed in the Almanac of American Politics that Tom DeLay's religious preference is Baptist. The combination of DeLay's denomination and the theme of the TV show he's trying to fix reminded me of this old joke:

Q: Why are Baptists against premarital sex?

A: They're afraid it will lead to dancing.

You know what, Tom? Everything you see and hear does not have to be grounds for a partisan political battle. Sometimes a dance is just a dance.

What liberal media bias?

Have you read about ABC's bullshit 9-11 propaganda film? This travesty twists facts, makes up events, and invents characters, all in an attempt to blame Bill Clinton for 9-11 and absolve Bush of responsibility. The fakeumentary is set to air on September 10 and 11 to mark the 5th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

But wait, there's more: Check out this e-mail to a conservative blogger, in which someone at ABC assures said conservative that the propaganda hit piece will air "as is."

Well pardon me, but isn't ABC part of that allegedly liberal media the conservatives are always claiming is biased against them?

Liberal bias in the media my ass.

Here's what's wrong with the media

Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman's suggested during a recent online discussion that journalists have a choice between ignoring false statements by government officials or simply reporting them without comment. When readers pointed out the "third way" available to Weisman and his fellow reporters -- reporting the false statement and accompanying it with actual journalism that assesses and reports on the statement's (and the speaker's) credibility" -- Weisman rejected the suggestion, claiming that the third option would be inappropriate "analysis."

It gets worse. Jim Lehrer, the host of Public Broadcasting's "NewsHour" said in a recent interview "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism. I'm in the reporting part of journalism." Lehrer went on to say that a reporter is not obligated to tell readers, listeners or viewers that a statement is false, even if the reporter knows it for a fact. In fact Lehrer suggests that the most a reporter can be do is report the false statement, then carry a rebuttal from another source, all without assessing the truth or falsehood of what was said. Check out this exchange:

Jim Lehrer: "...if somebody says, "It rained on Thursday," and you know for a fact it didn't rain on Thursday, if the person was of a nature that you felt you should quote him, "It rained on Thursday." Second paragraph, third paragraph -- or in television terms second or third sentence -- you would say, "However, according to the weather bureau it didn't [rain Thursday]." But you don't call the person a liar. The person who would call that person a liar would be the person who'd read that story and say, "My god, Billy Bob lied." But I'm not doing that. I'm providing the information so that the person can make their decision. People might say, "Well the weather bureau has lied. Or I was out that day and it was raining ..."

Interviewer: "Is there any place for writing, "Billy Bob said it rained Thursday. The weather bureau said it didn't. I was out that day and I say it didn't."

JL: "I would never do that. That's not my function to do that."

Interviewer: "Is it a newspaper's function?"

JL: "Look, I'm just telling you what I do, ok? I'm an expert on the NewsHour and it isn't how I practice journalism. I am not involved in the story. I serve only as a reporter or someone asking questions. I am not the story."

This is the problem precisely -- reporters that don't feel obligated to let the public know when something's not true. These "journalists" think that there are always two sides to every question and that both sides are equally credible. Further, they think that if someone makes a claim, all they have to do is carry an opposing opinion, and they've created "balance," so the story is OK.

The problem with "balance" is that not everyone tells the truth and that both sides of every question are not equally credible.

Unless journalists start doing real reporting and not simply working as stenographers, too many people will be tempted to play fast and loose with the facts and the public will be ill-informed.

To Jim Lehrer and Jonathan Weisman and all the other clerk-typists posing as journalists I say "DO YOUR JOBS."

Damn those New York Times liberals

Associated Press photo. President Bush greets members of the audience after a Labor Day speech at the Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education in Piney Point, Maryland.

Check out this story about President Bush's Labor Day appearance in Maryland. New York Times reporter David E. Sanger correctly writes that Bush visited a union facility without any other candidates for public office. Sanger also correctly points out that Bush has used such Labor Day events for political campaigning in the past. However, here's what Sanger left out -- something that if known completely changes the context of WHY Bush was in Maryland this year without any other political candidates: Two Republican candidates in Maryland, Governor Robert Ehrlich, who's running for reelection, and Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, who's running for the US Senate, declined invitations to attend the event with Bush.

Time and time again, "journalists" bend over backwards to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and put any action he takes or fails to take in the best possible light. Now his fellow Republican candidates don't want to be seen with him, and the Times just glosses over it. According to these "reporters," no matter how low his opinion poll favorability ratings go, Bush can do no wrong.

WHAT liberal media? WHAT "liberal bias" at the New York Times?

I'm telling you, liberal bias in the media is a conservative myth.