"Last Sunday the popular news chat shows featured
Cheney, McCain and Gingrich. When Republicans control the government,
major news shows skew Republican. When Democrats control the government
the shows still lean right."
-- Tim F, Link
Over the years I've tried to explain this.
When a Rethug gets on TV - it's really great TV!
They scream, "that nigger"
at Obama and they set their hair on fire and they make threats
about seceding from the country and arming the populace to fend
off "Obama's fascism."
When a meek and timid Democratic mouse gets on TV, he says he
wants to be fair and
the GOP has a good point and they have good people ...and can't
we all just get along?
If I produced a Sunday TV show, I'd probably have the hair-on-fire
Until the Democrats learn to list the facts - forceably
- who wants to hear from them?
Who wants to hear a wimpy mouse squeak when they can hear an angry
Excerpt: In trying to explain his startling decision to
oppose the public release of more photos depicting detainee abuse,
President Obama and his aides yesterday put forth
six excuses for his about-face, one more flawed than the next.
First, there was the nothing-to-see-here excuse.
In his remarks yesterday afternoon, Obama said the "photos are not
particularly sensational, especially when compared
to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."
The Whore Post reports that one congressional
staffer said the pictures are more graphic than those from Abu Ghraib.
"When they are released, there will be a major
outcry for an investigation," the staff
The NYWhore Times reports: "Many of the photos
may recall those taken at Abu Ghraib which caused an uproar in when they came to light in 2004."
And if they really aren't that sensational, then what's the big deal?
Then there was the the-bad-apples-have-been-dealt-with
excuse. This one, to me, is the most troubling.
I think I know what happened here.
The inexperienced Obama White House made the correct, I think, decision
to release the photos.
Then the generals came to Obama and said, "If
you release these, you'll lose support from the soldiers and the military familes and you'll lose most
of the generals and most of the Pentagon, so please reconsider."
Obama, being a shrewd politician, decided not to throw away the military
good will he has established.
I think those photos should come out for the same reason Bush should've
If the military knows they can abuse helpless prisoners and Obama will
help them cover it up - they'll keep doing it.
I always say "Truth is the enemy of the Republicans." I understand why he's doing this, but it looks like the truth is, in
this case, Obama's enemy.
If the military doesn't want proof of their atrocious behavior to come
out - they should stop acting atrociously.
"Cheney's PR offensive over the last month
actually worked. Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney's command to not release the abuse pictures...Now,
it looks to the rest of the world that we are trying to hide something,
that we have not turned over a new leaf, that it
is the same old lies and duplicity - and that Obama is on it. This was
colossally stupid. "
-- Cenk Uygur, looking for the worst light he can oput this in,
Obama is not following Cheney's commands.
They looked at the situation, they made the right decision to
release the pictures,
but then the military came with all their doomsday scenarios
of what would happen
and Obama reconsidered his first judgment.
It was marginally stupid to not think it thru before making
It's easier to avoid the hole than to step in it and then
ask, "Who knows how to set a broken leg?"
Sidebar: I like Rahm Emanuel, but is he doing a good job?
Think about West Wing - Bartlet was always thinking about
with some off-the-cuff idea but then
Leo would enter the room calmy explain why things needed to go
in a different direction
and Bartlet would see he was right - and fewer mistakes were
And don't they have a military laison dude in the White House?
Did they get his opinion before announce the photo release?
Rahm didn't have 5 minutes to make a phone call to the Joint
Chiefs to get their opinion?
Excerpt: Obama has described the Afghanistan/Pakistan
border region as "the most dangerous place in the world" for Americans.
On TV chat shows, national security thinkers
wax portentous at the dire prospect of the Taliban gaining control of Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal. In sober moments, most admit
that this is as unlikely as white supremacist militias overrunning the
but it definitely makes for exciting melodrama.
And TV melodrama is how America governs itself.
Within the Washington establishment, it's well-nigh treasonous to point
that we're talking here about the absolute end
of the Earth; that the U.S. hasn't got the manpower, resources or political
control territory that Pakistan's own government
can't tame; and that the habit of treating the entire planet as a huge
game of "Risk"
is leaving the United States as overextended
militarily and financially as the Spanish Empire in 1588, the year its
destroyed off the coast of Ireland.
Privately, Obama might agree. As a political matter,
Note: If you sign up,
you'll get a Twitter message
when that day's page goes up.
"We've had quite a few (military abuse) pictures. I'm not sure we need anymore. I haven't
seen the pictures."
-- Harry Reid with his typical Sgt Schultz , "I
know no-thing" leadership role,
Between Reid & Pelosi - it makes me want to start drinking
"I don't know what the point of releasing them
would be, other than to have an enormous cataclysmic reaction. We
saw the Abu Ghraib photographs."
-- Dianne Feinstein, who isn't sure if she's seen the photos,
Hey Dianne, why didn't you mention that BEFORE they announced
the decision to release them?
Isn't anybody using their f-ing head?
"Hmm TWO major flip flops in 2 days. I bet
the Kos kiddies hearts are breaking."
-- some prick over at Lucianne.com
"From what I've heard so far, these photos
should be released."
-- Russ Feingold, who won't be asking for sacrifice from the military,
In THE THIN WHITE LINE, author Craig DiLouie presents
a terrifying vision about how
a pandemic might unfold, focusing on the Canadian
experience but relevant to any country.
Reading as if it were a non-fiction book describing
a pandemic that has already happened,
THE THIN WHITE LINE presents a realistic, meticulously
"Craig DiLouie provides us with a clairvoyant
glimpse of life during the coming influenza pandemic. . . ." óGrattan Woodson, MD, FACP
author of THE BIRD FLU MANUAL
Bart, I havenít been to a movie in a few years
but based solely on your recommendation
I went to see Star Trek this week. Rarely have
I had such a fun time at the cinema and the time flew by!
I want to see more! Thanks. You have good taste
in movies and I am going to listen to you from now on.
I know a movie is good when I come out smiling
and feeling great.
David in Savannah, GA
Excerpt: I was utterly horrified to hear Dallas-based
talk show host Mark Davis, subbing for Rush Limbaugh, laughingly and approvingly
a passage from a Dallas magazine article by CBS
sportscaster David Feherty claiming that 'any U.S. soldier,' given a gun
with two bullets
and stuck in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry
Reid and Osama bin Laden, would use both bullets on Pelosi and strangle
the other two.
How have we come to this pass in America where
the assassination of top government officials is fodder for snide jokes
on national radio?
Talk radio has been seething with such intensity
that I am finding it very hard to listen to it. How many times do we have
to be told the
sky is falling? The major talk show hosts
made a strategic error in failing to reset at lower volume after Obama's
election. When the default mode is feverish crisis pitch,
there's nowhere to go, and monotony sets in. Lately, I've been impatiently
As a longtime fan of talk radio, I don't think
this bodes well for the long-term broad appeal of the medium. I want stimulation
expansion of my thinking -- not shrill, numbing
hectoring and partisan undermining of the authority and dignity of the
Rabidly Bush-bashing Democrats shouldn't have
done it to the last president either, but that's no excuse for conservatives,
who claim to revere our institutions, to play
schoolyard tit for tat.
I don't know what the writer is talking about
- Rabidly Bush-bashing Democrats? Surely not on the radio.
Take away Randi Rhodes, who only went after Bush-Cheney
moderately, and who else are we talking about?
Keith Olbermann is the only guy on all of TV
who went after Bush-Cheney - so who are we talking about?
You can't compare 400 foam-at-the-mouth radio and TV racists to Rhodes
torture victims) wouldn't be treated any better
in the United States, and they wouldn't have the tropical
breezes blowing through." -- Jess Sessions, proving what a lying bastard he
really is, Link
Bush ordered those goat herders held outside our borders so he
wouldn't have to answer to a federal judge.
Sessions knows that - he's just lying in the hope that the brainless,
Southern white rednecks will believe him.
Hey Jeff, meet me in Vegas on May 30 - when the breezes are so
tropical - and I'll push your face
into a bucket of urine until you swallow so much you pass out
- then you can tell me how nice it feels.
"What do you expect from a party that snearingly
vilifies anyone who is educated and accomplished as "elites." Ignorance
is the GOP's primary appeal to southern white males. That explains Jeff Sessions - ignorant,
white, redneck male. The Bama crackers jes luv him." -- afgail Link
Erik has been advertising on bartcom.com since 2002.
Subject: Reagan's tax cuts
I seem to remember that Reagan did, indeed cut
the corporate tax rate as you indicate (in the fall of 1981
...and THEN in March, 1982, he pushed through
one of the largest tax increases in the nation's history.
Remember, the increase of the federal tax on
gasoline and the increase on cigarettes?
He also managed the four-fold increase in the
national debt from $900-billions (which he lambsted Carter for)
to $3.6-TRILLION....and set the stage for the
lobbyist empires that run our government.
"I worry about about justices on the court
making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. In essence youíre saying, 'I donít
care what the law says, Iím going to rewrite the law. And I think thatís
-- Alberto Gonzales, lecturing us on obeying the law, Link
"Like when the felonious five decided to install
the boy-idiot? Or when you decided to make your boss
feel good by justifying torture?" --
"This guy was hired by George "the Constitution
is just a damn piece of paper" Bush. Priceless."
-- Doodlebug Shayne, Link
"Alberto Gonzales is the legal profession's
version of a ten dollar whore. He helped Bush/Cheney to rip up the
Constitution and wipe their asses with it. He should go to prison with the rest
of the war criminals." -- PFWoody488,Link
A shot of Chinaco to barfly, Doodlebug
Shayne and PFWoody488.
Excerpt: Obama's new drug czar says he wants to banish
the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs,"
a move that would underscore a shift favoring
treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy
was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.
"Regardless of how you try to explain to people
it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war
as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war
with people in this country."
Why don't we all agree on this:
If they let us have marijuana, we'll help the cops get the coke dealers,
meth dealers, crack dealers, etc.
Anyone caught "heavy" with a chemical drug, say,
after January 1, 2010, goes to jail.
But I'm convinced they LOVE the war on drugs. Cops get to bust high
schoolers with pot,
lawyers get rich defending affluent "criminals," the courts more money
from the heavy fines, etc.
It's a big sham and a citizen wants to take a mental vacation the government
wants a cut.
A few issues back I quoted a cop who asked his cop friends,
"When was the last time you busted a violent
pot smoker?" None of the assembled cops could think of a time, then he asked,
"When was the last time you busted a violent
drunk?" and everybody's hand shot up.
They could significantly cut the crime rate AND balance the budget with
but the religiously insane said God got very, very angry when they
asked Him about it.
...and you know how vicious and vengeful God can get when he's angry.
Excerpt: Under strong attack from Republicans, (and many
in her own party) Pelosi accused the CIA and the Bush bastards
of misleading her about torture in the war on
terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in the method's use.
"We were told specifically that waterboarding
was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a 2002 CIA briefing.
Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other
lawmakers were told later by the CIA about the torture.
"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that someone
else had been briefed about it," she said.
When Pelosi first addressed the question, she
said that she was not told that the practice had been employed.
"We were not - I repeat, were not - told that
these enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.
Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi
had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.
Nancy, part of the trick to successful lying is not changing your story.
You might be innocent, but when you change your story you look more
"Sarah Palin has a deal to write her memoir.
I believe it's titled, 'The Book to Nowhere.' She's not writing the book herself
- she hired Joe the Ghostwriter to help her. The cover shows her in a passionate
embrace with a shirtless Fabio."
-- Dave Letterman
Why the hell is everyone talking about investigating
Pelosi? Why isn't anyone investigating:
- the people who let her into the briefings, and
needed (?) to ask the House Minority leader to sign off on what
- the House Majority leader at the time?
- the White House executive at the time?
Maybe, once the people primarily responsible for
this policy are placed under oath, and provide their justification
for reintroducing torture as american governmental
policy, then we can worry about Pelosi's role in this.
Just wondering (rhetorically it seems) why the
Republican'ts are still allowed to frame the debate.
And are still allowed to get away without testifying
under oath about any of these high crimes and misdemeanors,
which, if I'm not mistaken, is why impeachment
was put into the frelling constitution in the first place...
Keep swinging the hammer! More Monkey Mail!
Tom the Unemployed Pillar in Pontiac, formerly
blogging at the Funny Farm (sigh)
Excerpt: Nancy Pelosi is no Dikk Cheney, nor a Bush. She
was neither the author of a systematic policy of torture
nor has she been, like Cheney and most top Republicans
Congress, an enduring apologist for its practice.
But what she, and anyone else who went along with
this evil, as lackadaisically as she now claims, should be
confronted with are the serious implications
of their passive acquiescence. Why did she not speak up, or if it were
a matter of a lack of reliable information, demand
an accounting from the executive branch, as befits a leader of
the loyal opposition in Congress?
If the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee, and later House Democratic leader, lacked the
authority to publicly question a policy of torture,
then how can we condemn, indeed imprison, ordinary soldiers
who thought it their duty to follow orders?
By acquiescing to the cover-up of unpleasant truths
in the treatment of prisoners, Pelosi contributed to the betrayal
of the ideal of public accountability that is
the bedrock of our government, which Congress is charged with protecting..
Yes. Very odd. She said she wasn't allowed
to blog or post updates.
She says she doesn't Twitter because she can't
limit herself to 140 characters.
That's about all I remember. They are running
her from 6-9pm Pacific here.
Thatís about 2 hours past my 4:20 Tee time.
As an Obama supporter, Iíve got to say his decision
to try to weasel out of releasing the prisoner abuse photos
is a very shallow and self-serving one that reeks
of political cowardice. The fact is, Obama has a losing argument
in court and will almost certainly be forced
to cough up the pictures sooner or later. The president no doubt knows
but apparently feels the need to hide behind
SCOTUS robes before complying with the law and his own previous vow
to run a transparent administration.
I understand the desire not to put our troops
in harmís way any more than they are already, but attempting to censor
evidence everybody knows about, even without
seeing the new images, will not accomplish the mission. Our governmentís
abuse and torture of prisoners is one truth we
let out of the barn door since the Abu Ghraib horrors emerged years ago,
Keep swinging that hammer and stay as well as
you can. Best wishes,
Our motto for
this year is - "No Anti-Bush Site Left Behind".
So - if you have an anti-bush site and you are choking on hosting
fees or dealing with threats - let us know and we'll help keep you online.
have that strongest server side spam filtering on the planet.
Check out Marx
Mail for info on how you can have a Spam
Free Email Account.