Liz Cheney's Compulsive Lies : Pathological or Hereditary?

Share |

There are many reasons why a person would lie, but to cover-up something is always, more often then not, the reason for the attempt. Across the vast abyss of the world wide web, you can find an endless supply of examples where Liz Cheney has just flat out lied, embellished, and repeated statements that are just flat out untrue .

Pathological liars often exaggerate issues. In this case, a person may not be lying deliberately. He/she would think and believe in their lies completely. A pathological liar would thus concoct lies in public to make people believe new stories just like Ms. Cheney did.

Ms. Cheney was quite clear when she said : "When President Bush used to do it, he'd do it without the cameras."

Now, either Ms. Cheney just made that narrative up as the words left her mouth, but made the mistake of assuming that all President's have made trips to Dover to honor our fallen soldiers.

She couldn't have confused it with another airfield or anything of that sort since George W. Bush never, and I mean NEVER went to be there for the brave men who where making their final trip home form a war they fought and died in at his command.

It's so easy for people to be frustrated with President Obama for not just shipping off 20,000 more men without stopping to make sure that we have a plan for getting in, executing the strategy, and getting the hell out. Or if that country even has a government.

You know what? If some Veteren who has been on a battle field wanted to put in his two cents in, that would be one thing, but for Dick Fucking Cheney and his Bi-Polar daughter to even open their pie holes after being caught in lie-after-lie and now just making making it up off the top of your head, it's a slap in the face.

Pathological liars often exaggerate issues. In this case, a person may not be lying deliberately. He or she would think and believe in their lies completely. A pathological liar would thus concoct lies in public to make people believe new stories very much like the way Ms. Cheney just concocted a story about President Bush not having any cameras around over at Dover when he went to pay his respects to our fallen soldiers.

It was another narrative that was now out there in the minds of Americans that she and daddy could use to make President Obama look like an opportunists.

Come on Liz! - If going with cameras after less then a year in office is bad, what is not going at all with or without cameras after nearly 8 fucking years. You said it yourself that every Commander In Cheif should do whatever they can to honor our military folks. Remember? - That's what you said Liz. Because these men have made the untimate sacrifice for thier country. Remember? - Those are your words Liz. But you see, here's the problem. Your fucking dad never went! - George Bush never went! - Neither of them went and they've had thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of opportunities to do so. THEY DIDN'T GO! - And you have the balls to say that George Bush did when you obviously didn't have a clue if he did or not.

But now we get it! - This lie is the proverbial bell that you cannot un-ring. You said "The way that Presdient Bush did it, he did it without cameras." Your talking about a process that George Bush used to do something that he has never done before.

You were not sure if he had or hadn't ever done that, but when you're live on the radio ,you had just laid out the bad version for Barack Obama and now you needed one of those "What would George Bush have done." and when you didn't know the answer with any amount of certainty, You frickin' made it up! - What's up with that?

Ms. Cheney.

To quote Joe Wilson,

SNL's "Rock Obama" Skit Here For The Duration.

Share |

NBC's Saturday Night Live has been poking fun at our presidents going back to Chevy Chase's clumsey rendition of Gerald R. Ford.

They had fun with The elder President Bush and his 2nd in command Dan Quayle. They really gave it to Bill Clinton and every once in a while they'd take a shot at Vice President Albert Gore.

However, in the case of the unsophistocated George W. Bush and his diabolical sidekick, Richard B. Cheney, the material just kept coming fast and furious for all years of thier Christian Jihad.

SNL's been having fun with President Barack H. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden going back well before the election.



.

Bush Admin Documents On Detainee Deaths Missing?

Share |

Classified Bush-era documents related to the deaths of detainees in U.S. Military custody, their treatment, the administration's controversial interrogation and rendition programs are missing according to a recent court filing submitted by the Obama Justice Department. But a Justice Department spokeswoman says the documents may not actually be gone; they may never have existed—even though Bush administration records say that they do.

The potential disappearance of these Torture Documents is more than just a bureaucratic whodunit. There's a possibility that government officials purposely destroyed records pertaining to detainee abuse. Here's what happened: In 2007, the Bush administration was fighting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was seeking records related to detainee deaths, there treatment, and the administration's rendition policies.

CIA lawyers drew up a list [PDF] of 181 documents that they considered exempt from release. Some of these records, which were stored in a secure facility, were so sensitive that Justice Department lawyers lacked the clearances to handle them. After President Obama took office, he issued a new FOIA policy, instructing executive branch agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor" of releasing information. The Obama Justice Department reprocessed the ACLU's earlier request under the new guidelines. But when they did so, department officials discovered that 10 documents listed on the index compiled by the Bush administration were nowhere to be found.

The Justice Department noted this in a filing [PDF] by David Barron, an acting assistant attorney general, which was submitted last week as part of the ongoing ACLU case and first highlighted by Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler. Barron acknowledged in the filing that even more documents could be missing, because "many" of the documents the Obama team did find were "not certain matches" to the ones on the Bush administration's list.

"It was impossible to ascertain whether the discrepancy was the result of an error by the prior administration when it created the original…index or whether the prior administration misplaced the documents in question," Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told Mother Jones. In other words, CIA and Justice Department lawyers might have mistakenly listed documents that never existed in the first place.

But is it plausible that the inconsistency could be merely a clerical error? After the Bush administration created the index, a CIA official swore under oath that she had reviewed the documents on the original list. And one of the disputed documents was listed on the original index as a 46-page memo "providing legal advice," classified as top secret and dated 25 July 2002.

Schmaler says the Obama administration's search never found a document matching that description. Could the CIA and Justice Department lawyers who composed the original list have mistakenly included a non-existent memo—complete with a date and precise page count?
According to Barron's filing, the documents on the original list were stored in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, a specially secured room that is protected not only against unauthorized entry but also against electronic surveillance or monitoring by foreign intelligence services.

If documents went missing from a SCIF, says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, that raises serious questions about the government's ability to keep sensitive documents secure. "If there is any indication of sloppiness in security procedures at one of these facilities, that's worrisome all by itself," he says. "It suggests that some of the nation's most sensitive information is not being properly protected."

Aftergood says he expects the court will try to determine if the discrepancies between the two indexes are due to an error or whether the documents actually disappeared. "The government will have to do better than shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know' if they want to persuade the court that this was not an act of bad faith," he says.

Liz Cheney: SUCK MY DICK CHENEY!

Share |

Liz Cheney, the biggest cheerleader for her father and former Vice President Dick Cheney, has now racked up more airtime thus far into Barack Obama’s administration then her father has in the 8 years he was in office. However, with each passing day, with each newly released CIA, DOJ, or IG report, it is clear that Cheney and the Bush Administration’s actions are beyond any rational defense. Also clear is that Ms. Cheney shares the same disconnect with honesty and integrity as her father.

Ms. Cheney has gone from playing fast and loose with the facts, to ignoring them completely. With newly released information, Liz Cheney has been relegated to sticking to a set of talking points that not only have no basis in fact, but no longer reside within the realm of possibility. They are simply tender notions that both Cheney’s hang onto in the childish hope that if they say them enough, maybe they’ll become the truth.

Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Liz Cheney’s commentary was riddled with the sort of misstatements, obfuscations and downright lies that have now become a staple of her TV performances as well as the “shit eating” grin as pictured above.

When the discussion turned to Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate the CIA's interrogation practices used on suspected terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, Cheney adamantly argued against the probe. She said, "But this investigation has already been done. Career prosecutors looked this at for five years. They decided not to prosecute except in one case where a contractor has been convicted and is in jail."

The Justice Department's ethics office, the Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles attorney misconduct, recommended that Holder revisit nearly 12 prisoner abuse cases. This clearly suggests that the OPR is not satisfied with the previous investigations into the cases that occurred during the Bush administration. As, according to the Justice Department Web site, the OPR “is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys,” it is likely the office concluded that the Bush-era attorneys who made the previous decisions erred in some way.

During her appearance on ABC, Cheney also said directly that waterboarding "isn't torture." However, those in the Bush administration privately acknowledged that waterboarding was torture and President Obama has said it definitely violates the Geneva Conventions -- as has Republican Sen. John McCain. There seems to be near-universal agreement that waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

In a video made by ABC of the round-table participants talking after the show, Cheney then invoked the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify using "enhanced interrogation techniques" and said that torture had worked in the past to prevent attacks on the U.S. However, recently released documents on the CIA's use of torture on detainees did not show that torture worked.

From just mid-May to early June, Cheney appeared on television news programs at least 22 times. And nearly every time she's been on, she's taken the opportunity to criticize President Obama -- but has often done so by reiterating factually dubious claims or flat-out lies. As MSNBC's Rachel Maddow quipped in June, "Liz Cheney is still on TV -- making news by apparently making stuff up." Yet, when asked why Cheney is continually booked on MSNBC, despite her problems with the truth, a network spokesperson called Cheney a "great guest."
Indeed. Here's a look at some of the recent times Cheney has strayed from the truth:

On July 21, Cheney defended the Birther movement on CNN's "Larry King Live" -- despite the fact that those behind the movement and their claims about President Obama's birth certificate have been thoroughly debunked.

On July 13, when it was revealed that former Vice President Cheney directed the CIA to keep information on a secret program to assassinate al-Qaida leaders from Congress for eight years, some Democrats called for an investigation into the matter. In response, Liz Cheney misrepresented what Democrats wanted to look into and told the Washington Times, "I am really surprised that the Democrats decide that that’s what they want to fight over. I mean, if they want to go to the American people and say that they disagree with the notion that we ought to be capturing and killing al-Qaida leaders, I think it’s just going to prove to the American people one more time why they can’t trust the Democrats with our national security."
During an appearance on CNN on June 10, Cheney blasted Obama for his foreign policy positions. She said, "I would say one of the things that is troubling to Americans, I think, is the extent to which this administration is focused on the president's popularity overseas. We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.'"

However, as the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen pointed out at the time, on April 5, Obama in fact stated clearly, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world."

Salon's Joan Walsh took her on for a variety of false claims during an appearance on CNN on June 9. Cheney argued that Obama's decision to close Guantánamo and possibly bring the detainees still held there to U.S. soil to stand trial would "make us less safe." Walsh pointed out that in 2006, President Bush had advocated for the very same thing, which Cheney denied, despite all evidence to the contrary. Walsh also discussed the numerous former Bush officials who are staunchly in favor of closing Guantánamo even as Cheney tried to depict the closing of the prison as a completely partisan decision.

On June 4, Cheney appeared on NBC and said that her father never made a link between 9/11 and Iraq in justifying the decision of the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from power. This is flatly false.

Socialist Or Jihadist: You Can Only Pick One

Share |

The claim that the Bush Administration “kept America safe from another attack.” following the September 11, 2001 attack on The Word Trade Center has been a talking point more then a fact from it’s first utterance. In order for such a statement to even be remotely true, George Bush and Dick Cheney would’ve had to pick up a rifle and stand a post in Afghanistan or Iraq. Anything short of that is not only absurd it’s bullshit.

After leaving office, the talking point became a mantra for former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz as they embarked on a media campaign following the release of legal opinions from The Department of Justices Office of Legal Council, which soon became known as “the torture memos.” - Both Cheney’s picked up the pace on their damage control tour and would always fall back on that mantra when their arguments in defense of torture where shot down like ducks in a row. “Well….at the end of the day, the Administration did keep America safe from another attack following 9/11.” Liz Cheney said countless times during the media campaign.

If that’s how the Cheney’s want us to see these events, then lets back up a few years to the first attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton not only kept up safe through out the completion of two terms in office, but he managed to find the perpetrators, bring them to justice, and do so without launching pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation.

It was only a matter of months after Clinton handed control over to George W. Bush did that protection end when the new administration ignored several warning signs. The daily briefing that warned that Bin Ladin was determined to strike inside the U.S.” was ignored and couldn’t have been more explicitly informative then a courtesy call from Osama Bin Ladin himself.

Now President Obama seems to be falling into the same trap that war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a noble cause that will protect America. The fact of the matter is that it won’t and in fact, if anything, it will only increase the desire for Islamic extremist to launch another 9/11-style attack and weaken the Pakistani Government by pushing Al Qaeda and the Taliban across its border.

I needn’t remind the current administration that Pakistan has nuclear weapons that these groups would just love to get their hands on. Yet the Republicans would have us believe otherwise or what Bush and Cheney wanted us to believe for the better part of 8 years. The war against terror was nothing more then a jihad similar to the objectives of Blackwater. It’s chief objective was to rid the world of not only Muslim extremist but also the Muslim faith itself. Therefore, if you supported George Bush, you’re a Jihadist. After all, isn’t that the new battle cry of the right? – If you support Barack Obama, you’re a socialist. Well…I’d rather be a Socialist then a Jihadist.

Cheney Memoir Against His Presidential Loyalty Principal

Share |

Immediately upon leaving office, the release of Department of Justice internal memos cast a far more sinister light on the former President and Vice President's instaiable appitite for war.

While former President George W. Bush quietly took up residence in the Huston suburbs, former Vice President Richard B.Cheney stayed behind in Washington. He and his daughter Liz, embarked on a media tour to sound the alarm over the new administrations "far left" agenda.

However, it soon became clear that the Cheney's focus was to validate the actions of the Bush Administration, and particularly the legal opinions coming out of the DOJ's Office of Legal Council that attempt to justify torture.

For the better part of two months, Liz Cheney defended, or attempted to defend her fathers actions and was usually left without a logical rebuttal, except "at the end of the day, they kept America safe for 8 years, " which most of the country did not agree with. In order for that statement to be true, George Bush and Dick Cheney would have had to pick up a rifle and stand a post in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we all know that didn't happen. However, we do know what happened the last time that Dick Cheney did pick up a rifle.

With Cheney's memoirs taking shape, it's clear that his distain for Geroge W. Bush goes beyond Bush's refusal to grant a Presidential pardon to Cheney's former Aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Bush did however commute Libby's sentance upon conviction in the Federal Court for purgery.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

Some conservatives rebut the argument, noting that Bush was nothing if not stubborn in the face of political and public opposition. Commenting on the story, Joe Scarborough pointed out on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Bush was defiant about the surge in Iraq despite the polls.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told tales out of school in their own books, Cheney blasted them in the media and said that The presidency is owed loyalty, or at least that was Cheney's view at the time.

That doesn't seem to be the case any longer since his own tell-all book will soon be going to press. Cheney is telling friends that "the statute of limitations has expired" on tensions between them. Last month, Time magazine reported that, Cheney was furious at Bush for not pardoning Scooter Libby, the vice presidential aide who, in Cheney's words, "was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder" by not disclosing all he knew about who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press.

Cheney is apparently sharing his recollections with groups of friends and associates, sort of prepping them for the disclosures to come in his 2011 book. After one group session, one Cheney associate told the Post's Barton Gellman that the former vice president is mad at 43 for being "shackled" by public opinion:

Told in one session that Bush, in his own memoirs, hoped to explore his personal feelings, Cheney responded that he had no intention of doing that.

Bush Admin Covered Up The Danger Of Cell Phones

Share |

Today I received the following email from Bruce Arnold over at Bruce on Bikers Rights and found it worth making a blog post as is. I apologize that the links didn't copy over, but there full of interesting information and worth the effort to copy and paste in your browser.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION COVERED UP THE DANGERS OF CELL PHONES
And we hate to say we told you so ... but we told you so!

Bruce on Bikers Rights (August 2009: Special Edition)

Anybody wonder why NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker and NTSB Board Member Kitty Higgins had nowhere to run this week except out the door? It's because WE--meaning Robert "RC" Conroy, myself and many other dedicated motorcyclists' rights activists who have been battling for years against the carnage caused by drivers immersed in cellphone calls--have made damned sure that when asked the question "WHAT DID YOU KNOW AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?", their answers if honest will be damning:

We hate to say we told you so, folks, but WE TOLD YOU SO. Click the links below, and read dozens of accounts of righteous indignation written by "professional" journalists who have no excuse for their years of denial regarding this issue. Some of the links are long, and your email software may break them. If that happens, please don't reply to us claiming "the links don't work". Instead, copy and paste the broken segments into your browser address bar, then click Go or hit Enter. If you find that confusing, seek assistance from the nearest teenager. And be nice about it, as they may soon turn 18 and either (a) possibly go to war and give their life defending your right to be computer-illiterate in the Internet Age, or (b) certainly spend what's left of their life struggling to pay off the $53 trillion in debt and "unfunded obligations" which--like the untold motorcyclists' and other motorists' deaths attributable to this cover-up--are a lasting legacy of the George Bush Administration:

U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving (may require registration to read)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html

Documents: Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/documents-from-the-u-s-department-of-transportation-s-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration/original.pdf

Report: Agency withheld distracted driver research
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsKtAgd7nPCrDhq2AUGTK9fSdtiAD99IJGS00

Real cell-phone dangers exposed: Using wireless communication devices while driving
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/07/cell-phone-dangers-using-wireless-communication-devices-while-driving.html

Highway agency wanted total cell phone ban
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32035670/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

Consumer Groups: Gov't Kept Secret The Dangers of Cell Phones
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Travel/story?id=8135393&page=1

Studies Showing Dangers of Cellphone Use while Driving Were Suppressed
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10233

Government Withheld Important Safety Data Showing Drivers' Hands-Free Cell Phone Use Is Just as Hazardous as Handheld Use
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2927

Jay Bookman Research on cell-phone-use-while-driving quashed by feds
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/07/21/research-on-cell-phone-use-while-driving-quashed-by-feds/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

Report: Agency Hid Distracted Driver Stats
http://cbs4.com/consumer/Distracted.Driving.Drivers.2.1095052.html

Agency withheld data on dangers of talking and driving
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090721/cellphone_report_090721/20090721?hub=TopStories

U.S. agency hid cellphone driving risk data: N.Y. Times
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/07/21/cellphone-driving.html

US quashed report on dangers of phone use while driving
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gzXBemNwjmj2tu7wIyY0dWqpOnNA

Group Hid Study On Cellphone's Driving Distractions
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1724351/group_hid_study_on_cellphones_driving_distractions/

http://support.ldrlongdistancerider.com

"The battle for bikers' rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists ... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish those who violate our rights or right-of-way. And in the end, it will not matter to us whether we won or lost. But it will matter to us greatly that we fought."--Bruce Arnold

***

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT BRUCE'S RIGHTS RIDERS LIST

Please forward this email to fellow riders on your contacts list, or use the TELL A FRIEND box here:

http://rightsriders.ldrlongdistancerider.com

***

THE LATEST BIKERS' RIGHTS NEWS

The latest headlines for motorcyclists' rights, motorcycle awareness, helmet laws, noise ordinances and motorists' failure to yield by category are now available 24/7. Here is the link to add to your web browser favorites or bookmarks:

http://bikernews.ldrlongdistancerider.com

Bush Secret Surveillance Program Legal Basis ?

Share |

According to a new government report that questions the legal basis for the unprecedented anti-terrorism program, the Bush administration authorized secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public
It's unclear how much valuable intelligence was yielded by the surveillance program started after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, according to the unclassified summary of reports by five inspectors general. The reports mandated by Congress last year were delivered to lawmakers Friday.
President George W. Bush authorized other secret intelligence activities - which have yet to become public - even as he was launching the massive warrentless wiretapping program, the summary said. It describes the entire program as the "President's Surveillance Program."
The report describes the program as unprecedented and raises questions about the legal grounding used for its creation. It also says the intelligence agencies' continued retention and use of the information collected under the program should be carefully monitored.
Many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap in intelligence. Others, including FBI, CIA and National Counterterrorism Center analysts, said intelligence gathered by traditional means was often more specific and timely, according to the report.
The Bush White House acknowledged in 2005 that it allowed the National Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed through U.S. cables without court orders.
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 government officials and private sector personnel, including former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Five former Bush administration officials refused to be interviewed, including former CIA Director George Tenet and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The others: former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; former top Cheney aide David Addington; and John Yoo, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general.
The IG report said an unnamed White House official inserted a paragraph into the first threat assessment prepared by the CIA after the Sept. 11 attacks, which was used to justify the extraordinary intelligence measures.
The paragraph said that the "individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism possessed the capability and intention to undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States," according to the report. It also said that the president should authorize the NSA to conduct the surveillance activities.
The memos were revised and renewed thereafter every 45 days. The report said that the president consistently gave that authorization for the surveillance activity, and that both CIA chief Tenet and his successor, Porter Goss, never withheld their signatures from threat assessment memoranda.
The report also questions the legal advice used by President Bush to set up the program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by Yoo at the Justice Department.
The report suggests Yoo ignored an explicit provision in the FISA law designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance during wartime. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious impediment" to recertifying the program.
Congress required the review of the so-called warrantless wiretapping program last year when it revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is a 30 year-old law that created a secret court to oversee government electronic surveillance.
The inspectors general of the CIA, Justice Department, Defense Department, National Security Agency and Office of the National Intelligence Director also reviewed the Bush-era surveillance program.

O’Reilly – Hannity : The New Jihadist In The NeoCon Holy War

Share |

O’Reilly – Hannity : The New Jihadist In The NeoCon Holy War

By Chico Brisbane

If Bill O’Reilly doesn’t want to be blamed whenever some psycho goes off the deepend and brutaly murders a person that he has repeatedly demonized—as in the case of George Tiller, the doctor whom was shot dead in his church last Sunday by an anti-abortion zealot—then Mr. O’Reilly and all of the other wing-nuts over at Fox News might want to kick down their rhetoric a few thousand notches.

The Fox News Channel and particularly the O’Reilly Factor was the only place where I saw the relentless “Tiller The Killer” rhetoric, so it stands to reason that the shooter, Scott Roeder must have been fed the fuel via the same source. I see very little difference between Bill O’Reilly and one of these older islamic extreamist who pumps up a young jihadist until he straps on a bomb and goes and blows himself up in the middle of a crowded marketplace. O’Reilly kept up his rhetoric until his goal was accomplished and it’s no different then Hannity’s endless, and night after night “Obama’s a radical” rant that set some young white supremistsi off. Fortunately they where caught on the way the the democratic national convention before they could strike.

This type of rhetoric, which pumps up the ratings for O’Reilly and Hannity is no different then the sillyness that made the Jerry Springer show such a success. People will always love to tune in to watch the lowest forms of humanity turn against each other with little regard to consequence. It is in my opinion, the newest form of domestic terrorism.

Cheney Points 911 Blame Away From Bush

Share |

Dick Cheney goes on the defensive and blames 911 on Richard Clark, the former counter-terroism chief under President Bill Clinton. Cheney's remarks where spewed while speaking at the National Press Club today, Cheney struck back at Clarke. When asked about Clarke’s argument, Cheney — once again — invoked the "burning ashes" of 9/11 and the victims who leaped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. Then, quite succinctly, Cheney pinned the entire blame for 9/11 on Clarke: WATCH VIDEO


In fact, it was Cheney who "missed" the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)

"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)

"Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing" (May 26)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (June 23)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30)

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to "roll back" al Qaeda —

a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:

Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.

Cheney needs to check his "recollections" before blaming former employees for the single most devestating attack in American history.

Bush Kept America Safe: A Fantasy

Share |

George W. Bush claims that his torture policies have kept America safe for seven years and that information obtained via these violations of the Geneva Convention have assertained specific information that have prevented subsequent terrorist attacks (plural) from taking place. Yet we have not heard word one as to the time, place, manor, and person or persons involved in these thwarted attacks, and what judicial measure of justice has been served upon the would-be terrorist?

Much like the so-called terrorist sleeper cell cases of Detroit, Portland, Lackawana, etal, there seems to be an eliment of fantasy in many of claims that Bush and Cheney make in justifying their torture programs. Cheney recently stated in an interview with CBS that he was convinced, absolutely convinced that these policies have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Try as I may, I cannot accept such a claim at face value and particularly due it's source.

If the Septmember 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center claimed 3,500 lives, what kind of attack could Dick Cheney possibly believe his torture policy was directly responsible for interrupting that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The fact that he says "I'm convinced" that we saved hundreds of thousands of lives makes it quite clear that this claim is nothing more then an assumption, if not wishful thinking and that it has no basis in fact. Therefore, if he is only convinced and not certain that hundreds of thousands of lives were spared, then whatever information that was obtained via the waterboard would also be assumptive and speculative at best.

If you step back and look at the big picture surrounding this issue, I submit that it was actually President Clinton who is responsible for keeping America safe for seven years following the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. As disconnected as the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Departments were during that time, Ramsi Youseff and a whole list of other individuals responsible were caught and brought to justice rather swiftly. Not only do I disagree that George Bush kept America safe as he cliams, I believe that Bush ignored vital information that was passed on to him by the Clinton Administration during the transition in regards to Osama Bin Ladin.

We all know that Bush gave no creedence to the "Osama Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside of The United States." memo and the famous "Okay, you've covered your ass." line when he was briefed yet again in person regarding OBL.

Way back in 1993, many may have wondered whether the World Trade Center bombing itself is not a harbinger of the train wreck coming. Well...we now have that answer and no matter how you want to disect it, it happened on Bush 43's watch, and his lack of attention and concern over Osama Bin Ladin was a key factor.

Chico Brisbane

Dick Cheney Terrified Of Prosecution

Share |

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is suffering from an adrenaline dump now that he has a view of his torture program from the side line. No longer the puppet master, he is seeing not only the totality of what he and George Bush have done over the passed 8 years, but all of the deception to the American people and the congress they felt was necessary to make it happen.

"I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps

hundreds of thousands, of lives," Cheney said recently on CBS.

If a horrific terrorist attack such as 9/11 claimed 3,500 lives. What kind of attack could Cheney possibly be convinced, absolutely convinced was thwarted by his actions and saved hundreds of thousands of lives? The only event where numbers of that magnitude come into play are the number of lives lost in the very war of choice that he and George Bush waged against Afghanistan and Iraq. His frightening realization was only made worse by President Obama releasing the internal memos from the Office of Legal Council that are at best, a pathetic attempt at justifying torture.

You simply cannot make legal what is illegal with a bunch of lawyers in a basement office over at the Department of Justice. That would require an act of congress and both Cheney and Bush knew that they would get no such thing from this congress. With the writing on the wall, Cheney embarked on a media junket, not out of love for his country or the honest belief that his actions were justified, but to save his own ass. This is Dick Cheney we're talking about-- can you imagine the level of desperation this man must be at to enlist the help of his wife and daughter to help fight his battle?

Many in the media have asked this very question. Why is Cheney -- someone who had avoided the media for most of his eight years as vice president -- suddenly looking for an audience no matter what the subject. He's said that the anti-terror policies of the Bush administration were "exactly the right thing to do" and that "there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth." -- He also says that we are thretened and more unsafe due to Obama abandoning many of these inhanced interrogation tactics. So which it it? -- Does Cheney believe that he could possibly convince Obama to adopt his torture program verbatum? - Does anyone belive that Cheney really cares about the safety of the American people or any person for that matter who is not related to him by blood? -- All Cheney cares about is reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized. PERIOD! -- He is pinning his hopes on being able to fool a simple majority of Americans one last time so that he can, once and for all, retreat to his beloved undisclosed location.

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:
L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

Watch it:


Does Liz Cheney also fear that her dad will be prosecuted for his role in the Bush administration’s torture program? Perhaps so. As Steve Benen has noted, "Liz Cheney has been all over the television news" as well, with "12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks."

Sarah Palin: Still Defending Her Diarrhea Of The Mouth

Share |

May 20, 2009
By Chico Brisbane
chicobrisbane.blogspot.com

For former President George W. Bush, the war in Iraq was a crusade. Gov. Sarah Palin called it “a task from God. However, in an interview with ABC News last week, the one-time vice presidential candidate tried to explain away her verbage when referring to the bloody war in Iraq as a task from God. In the process, Palin contradicted herself on previous statements that human activity did not cause global warming.

She also defended asking for federal earmarks for Alaska after painting herself as a one-woman crusade against such wasteful spending, and not just as the Executive, but also too, when she was the Mayor of Wasilla. However, after the campaign we learned that she actually lobbied for them then as well. The self-proclaimed caribou hunting, lipstick wearing, snow machine riding, hockey mom seemed as unprepared and poorly spoken as she did during last years campaign.

I’m not counting Palin out just quite yet, but if there has ever been a political figure besides Joe Biden that you can count on to say the wrong thing at the worst time, it’s Sarah Palin. The difference is that the things that Biden says are silly and not well thought-out. Palin’s verbal diarrhea is calculated and routed in her extremist views. A case in point would be here desire to see abortion outlawed including in cases of rape and incest. However, you have to admit that Joseph R. Biden Jr. was dead-balls accurate when he said that Sarah Palin was a “backwards step” for woman. I think that was the point when even the most disenfranchised former Hillary supporter said WTF?

Make no mistake; Sarah Palin was a more formidable opponent than John McCain could have been in two of his lifetimes, yet his greatest misfortune in life besides being a prisoner of war, was picking Sarah Palin as “his” vice presidential running mate. No candidate will ever be successful with this woman at the bottom of the ticket. Palin will rise and fall all on her own as she's done her entire life and it surprises me, knowing what we now know about her, the she would have accepted the co-pilots chair to begin with. That's not how it is in her married life, so it stands to reason that the same would apply in her political life.

Am I Wrong To Regret Voting For Obama?

Share |

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq, he committed the United States to the reckless task of disassembling a sovereign nation, and then reassembling it according to his wishes. In the process of mishandling the war, the country and congress became aware of just how misleading the president and his administration were in seeking to gain approval for the war. Now that Bush is out of office, internal DOJ memos are casting a far more sinister light on the former president and vice presidents insatiable appetite for war.

In an attempt to counter the recently declassified memos, the former vice president has embarked on a media tour to justify the torture detainees while other Bush sycophants echo the same flimsy rational. They claim that water boarding is not torture and even if it is, it was necessary to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. The bottom line is that where we go one as a nation, we go all as a nation, and if we facilitate our own Hanoi Hilton, we have no moral ground to stand on should American soldiers be subjected to torture in the future. NONE WHATSOEVER!

When George H.W. Bush was ramping up to the Gulf War, Jimmy Carter sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council urging them not to rush into war without exploring a negotiated solution. The first President Bush and other Republicans in Washington considered this treasonous, a former president trying to thwart a sitting one, lobbying foreign diplomats to oppose his own country on a war resolution.

In 2002, when George W. Bush was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror.

Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich himself said that the former vice president Gore asserting that President Bush was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”

“I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief,” Gingrich said flatly.

Now, however, Gingrich backs Dick Cheney when he asserts that President Obama has made America less safe. What was once treasonous is now ones civic duty in the minds of many republicans that fear for the demise of their party. Asked by Bob Schieffer on Sunday how America could torture when it made a mockery of our ideals, Cheney blithely gave an answer that surely would have been labeled treasonous by Rush Limbaugh, if a Democratic ex-vice president had said it about a Republican president.

“Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.

The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who’s “SO WHAT?” line was the usual response to public opinion is now whining at nausium about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public. Cheney, who had five deferments to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow an oxy-cotin addict like Rush Limbaugh who has had three divorces and who also avoided Vietnam, than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.

“Bush 41 cares about decorum and protocol,” said an official. “I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate Cheney acting out. He is giving the whole party a black eye just as Jeb is out there trying to renew the party.”

Cheney unleashed, egged on by the combative Lynne and Liz, is pretty much the same as Cheney underground: He’s batty, and he thinks he was the president. Bush admired Cheney’s balls, but grew increasingly skeptical of him, the more he learned about foreign policy himself, and the more he got pulled into a diplomatic mode by Condi in the second term. There were even reports of W. doing a funny Cheney imitation and that it dawned on him that Cheney and Rummy represented a scofflaw, paranoid Nixon cell within his White House.

“Toward the end, 43 was just as confused as anybody about what makes Cheney tick,” said a Bush family loyalist.

Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans. He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable. W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scow croft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.But with W., “Back Seat” — Cheney’s Secret Service name in the Ford administration — clambered up front. Then he totaled the car. And no amount of yapping on TV is going to change that when history is written. On the other hand, I have become so frustrated by President Obama's soft stand on holding those responsible for these war crimes accountable, that I am on the verge of regretting my November 3, 2008 for one Barack Hussein Obama. Was Sean Hannity right all along?

Chico Brisbane

Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law

Share |

From: Huffington Post

Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law


The furor over when and whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the use of waterboarding has distracted attention from what is, perhaps, a far more problematic revelation regarding the Bush administration's interrogation of suspected terrorists.
According to the testimony of two high-ranking Democrats and recently declassified CIA and Justice Department documents, the Bush White House failed to disclose the use of waterboarding until roughly half a year after it was first deployed. Other writers -- notably Marcy Wheeler -- have picked up on this timeline. But it is worth restating and highlighting again because, if accurate, it appears to constitute a violation of law by the former White House.

As documented by the Congressional Research Service, the President is required to ensure "that the congressional intelligence committees are kept 'fully and currently informed' of U.S. intelligence activities, including any 'significant anticipated intelligence activity.'" The basis of this is the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act, which places a statutory obligation on the President to not just keep relevant committees "fully and currently informed" but to disclose "any significant anticipated intelligence activity."

"The requirement to report significant anticipated activities means, in practice, that the committees should be advised of important new program initiatives and specific activities that have major foreign policy implications," reads language accompanying the FY 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. With these disclosure obligations in mind, it is worth revisiting what is known about who was briefed on the use of waterboarding and when. According to Office of Legal Council memos and other sources, it is clear that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah began in August 2002.

Multiple records, meanwhile, show that Senate and House intelligence committee chairs and ranking members were briefed "on the interrogation" that fall. But the two Democrats who were briefed in 2002 -- Pelosi on September 4 and former Sen. Bob Graham on September 27 -- insist that they were not told waterboarding was in use. Indeed, the CIA disclosure about the time and content of the briefings describes the subject matter as "use of [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

The first time waterboarding was mentioned in a congressional briefing, it seems, comes on February 4, 2003 when Sens. Pat Roberts and John Rockefeller were told "in considerable detail" how EITs were deployed including "how the water board was used."

A day later, Rep. Jane Harman and an aide to Pelosi were briefed on detainee interrogation programs and techniques. "It was also discussed that interrogation methods were similar to those taught/used in SERE training." The SERE training served as the basis for the waterboarding techniques used on terrorism suspects.

In short: six months appeared to pass between the waterboarding of Zubaydah and the moment when Democrats were briefed on the matter.
Bush administration officials say that they kept all members of Congress in the know. But their statements leave some wiggle room. In a Washington Post op-ed, former House intelligence committee chairman and CIA Director Porter Goss wrote that he was "briefed on the CIA's 'High Value Terrorist Program,'" in the fall of 2002 and was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." The phrase "were to actually be employed" noticeably differs from "were being employed."

So it seems plausible that, in the fall of 2002, members of Congress were either told only that the government was considering or planning the use of waterboarding or were kept in the dark entirely about the technique. Both Pelosi and Graham insist that latter is true. And if that is, in fact, the case, it would seem to place the Bush administration outside the law requiring disclosure of intelligence activities.

Investigators Examining Interrogations, Legal Advice

Share |

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Bush-era interrogation techniques. Greg Sargent flagged two paragraphs of the story revealing that the White House intends to release a 2004 CIA report that casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of Bush’s torture program:

When the Justice Department said seven years ago that CIA interrogators at a secret prison in Thailand could make a suspected al-Qaeda leader fear he was drowning, it prescribed precise limits: Water could be poured from a cup or small watering can onto a saturated cloth covering his mouth and nose, inhibiting breathing for up to 40 seconds. It could be repeated, after allowing three or four full breaths, for up to 20 minutes.

But when the technique was employed on Abu Zubaida and later on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and al-Qaeda planner Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the interrogators in several cases applied what the CIA's Office of Inspector General described in a secret 2004 report as "large volumes of water" to the cloths, explaining that their aim was to be more "poignant and convincing," according to a recently declassified Justice Department account.

To assess whether interrogators complied with the department's guidance, Senate intelligence committee investigators are interviewing those involved, examining hundreds of CIA e-mails and reviewing a classified 2005 study by the agency's lawyers of dozens of interrogation videotapes, according to government officials who said they were not authorized to be quoted by name. Officials familiar with the Justice Department's inquiries into policymaking on detainees during the Bush administration said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has not ruled out conducting a similar investigation.

The issue has attracted scrutiny because of President Obama's statement April 22 that those involved would be immune from prosecution if they "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House."

Portions of the CIA inspector general report that have been made public and an account of detainees' experiences by the International Committee of the Red Cross highlight other potential excesses: the punching and beating of at least nine detainees in ways that appeared to go beyond authorized abdominal and facial "slaps"; the extended confinement of at least one detainee in a box so small that he had to crouch despite approval only for seated confinement; the slamming of detainees into firm walls, instead of the authorized pushing into a "false" wall that gave way; and the shackling of detainees' arms to overhead hooks or pipes, requiring that the prisoners stand for days at a time, despite the apparent absence of clear, written authorization by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for such shackling before 2005

The videotape study, which the Senate intelligence committee demanded to see in 2005 but did not receive until last year, assessed the legality of interrogations that occurred between April and December 2002. Its conclusions have not been disclosed, and the CIA destroyed the videotapes in late 2005. As early as October 2002, a lawyer for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Jonathan Fredman, told officers at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that "the videotaping of even totally legal techniques will look 'ugly,' " a recent report by the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

Government officials familiar with the CIA's early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the "top secret" May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month's release of the Justice Department's interrogation memos.

According to excerpts included in those memos, the inspector general's report concluded that interrogators initially used harsh techniques against some detainees who were not withholding information. Officials familiar with its contents said it also concluded that some of the techniques appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994.

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.
When the report was finished, CIA official Constance Rea told a New York court in January 2008, the inspector general "notified DOJ and other relevant oversight authorities of the review's findings." But two Bush administration officials privy to its conclusions said it did not provoke a specific CIA "referral" to the department suggesting an investigation of potential criminal liability, and no such investigation was undertaken at the time.

A U.S. intelligence official, asked for comment Friday, said that at the time of the inspector general report, the agency's general counsel "took issue with the interpretations of law put forward" in that report. "The bar for criminal referrals is low -- basically the possibility that a crime may have been committed. If it was all as clear-cut as the IG narrative suggests, why were no referrals made?"

The report's conclusions nonetheless prompted CIA general counsel John A. Rizzo to request fresh statements by the Justice Department that what the agency had been doing was indeed legal. Steven G. Bradbury, then deputy assistant attorney general, responded in May 2005 by issuing three opinions explaining why the interrogations did not violate the Convention Against Torture.

Legal experts say that bringing criminal charges against the CIA interrogators or those who ordered harsh methods would be akin to prosecuting police officers for brutality, but it could require also proving that the interrogators acted in bad faith.
David Kaye, a former State Department lawyer who runs UCLA's International Human Rights Program, said, "I don't think we know . . . the mechanics of how OLC legal advice made its way to people in the field, and it's the mechanics that will help investigators know whether there was bad faith in the interrogation program on the ground."

He added that U.S. anti-torture laws bar even "the conspiracy to commit torture," and those are the provisions that "should cause concern for [any] senior-level officials" who sanctioned improper interrogations, even from a distance.

Waterboarding Is Torture

Share |

Author Christopher Hitchens undergoes the controversial drowning technique, at the hands of men who once trained American soldiers to resist—not inflict—it.

As you will see in the video below, the first drop of water hits his face at 3:15 on the clock and a mere 17 seconds later, he gave the predetermined signal that he was drowning. I would like to see every public official who says that this is not torture to under go the cruel process 138 time for 10 to 20 minutes per session as was done to Kahlid Shahk Mohommad. I wonder what "vital intel" we could extract from them.

Once upon a time, waterboarding was something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict. It was endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that American Soldiers might find at the hands of a lawless foe who shows a total disregarded the Geneva Conventions. This is exactly what and where 8 years of the Bush – Cheney regime has lead our country.

After reading the piece in Vanity Fair “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” by Christopher Hitchens, I’ve had serious reservations about the torture tactic and I call it that because that it what it is, TORTURE! -- Hitchens submitted himself to a brutal waterboarding session in an effort to understand the human cost of America’s use of harsh tactics at Guantánamo and elsewhere. He hesitantly admits that he didn’t last very long and pointed out that unlike actual detainees, he had the luxery of ending the session immediately with a predetermined singal. A signal that Hitchens used only seconds into the torture session that he underwent. This is substantiated by the photo above that shows a couple of one gallon jugs of water on the floor. One is still full and the other is missing less than a quarter of it’s contence. The megor amount of water on Hitchens light blue shirt seem to substantiate his words and the photograph itself.

Hitchens goes on to explain that his particular handlers had only trained American G.I.’s how to resist the torture tactic and had never inflicted it on an actual dteainee. Yet these handlers boasted about how it was their understanding that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called “Mastermind” behind the September 11, attack lasted only two minutes before he cracked. However, Hitchens adds a (By the way, this story is not confirmed) after that claim. You’re God Damn right it’s not confirmed because it’s not true. If he cracked after 2 minutes, why in the fuck would Khalid Sheikh Mohammed need to be waterboarded 183 more times? – While The Fox News Channels Sean Hannity was bullied into undergoing waterboarding by guest Charles Grodin, it’s safe to say that he doesn’t have the balls to actually go through with it.

President Bush. Good Luck & Good Riddance

Share |

Good riddance Mr. President, good riddance to you.

As the clock runs out on the failed presidency of George W. Bush, he seems prepared to vacate his office profoundly ignorant of the monumental fiasco that he created and then blisfully presided over. He refuses to acknowledge the distruction that he will be leaving behind, even with the evidence right in front of his face. Or in one instance, flying right passed his face. When an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the president, which is culturally the insult of insults in that region. Bush paused to wonder out loud what his "cause" might be. Almost as if the preemptive invasion of the sovereign nation that this journalist calls home wasn't even within the realm of possibility as the "cause" for his anger. It is this sort of breathtaking arrogance of George Bush that will surely dirty up the pages of American history with his name on them.

Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon both left office under staggering disapproval and public scorn. However, they both tried in vein to seek any amount of redemption for their failures. Failures which are now dwarfed by the failures of George Bush and his morally bankrupt administration. His distorted view of the world combined with his willingness to hear only that which validates his view became the breeding ground for his failed policies.

Bill Maher: Farewell To Douchebags

Share |

Here's a humorous recap of 2008 and some of the faces that will fade away into the abyss of obscurity.

John McCain: The McCain Doctrine

Share |

With 30 days left to the election, Sean Hannity is still going on about Rev. Wright and missing term papers. McCain is on the attack and he's using rants that he's gone off on at least 100 times before. Well...that settles it -- Hannity is all out of new tricks and McCain is all out of fresh ideas. WATCH: The McBush Doctrine


I am going to leave this video posted to this blog as a shining example of the bullet that our nation dodged by electing Barack Obama in lieu of an unstable lunatic like John McCain.