Lee Hamilton Denies Mukasey’s Claim of pre-9/11 Phone Call

I wrote about this last Thursday and copied/pasted my letter to Mr Hamilton when it appeared he would refuse to comment on such a weird claim. Now Glenn Greenwald informs us that Mr Hamilton did respond and had this to say (in its entirety):

I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.

Glenn suggests (and I don’t see any other explanation) that this is either an instance where the Bush Administration blatantly hid the truth and lied about what happened… or, the country’s number one cop lied to us, crying his eyes out, trying to persuade us gullible rednecks that because the FISA law and our normal methods failed, we MUST give them even more unchecked power.

How much have you heard regarding this on TV?

Say what?

How Do We Know That Petraeus Crockered Us?

His commentary and answers show that he is either ignorant of the honest connections between Iraq Militias and Iran or he is betraying us.

The big push is the connection of Sadr’s Mahdi Army to Iran and how Iran is influencing and providing weapons and fighters to Iraqis. But I haven’t heard anything about the connections which are even more closely related to Iran and they are the Badr Corps (which is very closely related to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the ISCI, which is the largest political party inside Iraq and the one that Maliki is a part of. What this means is that the very leaders who are calling for their rival militia to disband is the same one that allows our leaders to make this false accusation when they are holding hands with Iran all along.

As a matter of fact, Sadr’s Militia has historically been the most anti-Iranian of the militias, so it is strange that we are spreading their false propaganda. Or is it strange?

I have heard over and over the connections between Al Sadr and Iran and NOT A SINGLE reference to the fact that Maliki is closer to “our enemy” (actually kissing the Iranian President) than Al Sadr is.

 

One other note: Crocker can now be called “Double Uh”

He is the king of “uh’s” when speaking.

Unemployment Rate in America: The Big Lie

Anyone who pays attention should understand that the government plays with all numbers revolving around the economy… especially the Bush Administration ReTHUGlicans and their Big Money cronies. But REAL LIFE shows me that in the SE USA, it is all smoke and mirrors.

As an economically dumbfounded Redneck, I barely understand all the nuances of the lies, so I rely on folks like Mike Folkerth who can break down the meaning in terms even this sad redneck can understand. From OpEdNEws:

In March, the U.S. lost 80,000 jobs, but that’s old hat and you heard it on the 6 o’clock News. What you didn’t hear on the local or national or world news was that on average, the U.S. adds 180,000 jobs per month. Want to know why? Because there are on average, 180,000 new job seekers each and every month. Want to know why? Because we believe that growth is good.

But this is not the end of the good news. During the past 90 days, the U.S. has lost 232,000 jobs. That means that each month, 180,000 people entering the job market also failed to find employment, but are not included in the numbers, as they were never employed previously.

The actual real unemployment then, grew by 772,000 in 90 days. They probably just forgot to tell us that on the 6 o’clock news huh?

It is all playing with numbers, but very few people in the MSM seem to understand, or simply refuse to report it. But do not think that they (the corrupt government cronies) don’t have a plan (or at least the semblance of one). Also, one of the huge issues that is looming is how the immigrants will be ignored in thse numbres, as well, and the effect that will have on the economy:

This number would be far worse if government were not continuing to hire on average, 22,000 per month in an effort to skew the numbers.

So then, if current U.S. citizens are not finding work or losing their current employment; has immigration been stemmed? What, are you kidding, growth is good. We allow some 125,000 immigrants per month to join our little unemployment club.

If some of the major economic leaders are correct, including “Bronco” Ben Bernanke and Alan “Cash” Greenspan, we will not see an economic recovery begin until 2009; at best.

That being the case, we will add 180,000 new job seekers to our unemployment each and every month. That is, if no further jobs are lost, which they are already scheduled to be by such companies as Chrysler, Ford, GM, AMD, Dell, Bear Stearns and so on. Estimates are that 200,000 jobs will cut in finance alone during the next 12 to 18 months.

This calculates that best case, 12 months from now, 2,160,000 people will have not found work…but won’t be reported as unemployed!

So what do immigrants do who can’t find work or who become laid off due to the housing and manufacturing slowdown? History tells us that they will form subcultures with those of their own heritage. The history of street gangs finds its U.S. roots in the 1800s, when mass immigration and stubborn unemployment collided.

The most sophisticated among us are three days away from being a barbarian. Three days without food that is.

Cheney’s Inspiring War Mongering Speech a Success: Troops NOW Ready To Go Home

Very Telling, indeed.

(Edited Heading: renamed for accuracy and clarity)

The MSM - Public Opinion Chasm on Iraq

Glenn Greenwald shared this chart on his blog this morning:

The actual Gallup Poll question was:

If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. — to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq?

I don’t have a breakdown of the numbers, but the average appears to say that Americans, in general, want the US to pull out. Notice who has a majority that do not think this. Now I have never been able to understand their mentality (nor the Dems, for that matter), but in this case, regarding this illegal war of aggression, (something that republicans and “conservatives” used to rally against) I can not think of any reason to be this out of tune with America… except an allegiance to a party, or a mass brainwashing… dumbed down for manipulation.

The fact is that America is not divided on this subject. Even in my travels of the reddest states in this Union, speaking with some of the most ardent “conservative” Republicans (differentiated from “ReTHUGlican”), it is evident that they want us out of this war.

I caught Cokie Roberts snicker and the brush-off attempt at The Nation’s Katrina Vanden Heuvel when Katrina was explaining what Americans want and the idiocy of what the Administration and complicit Republicans want:

To the contrary, Americans overwhelmingly favor unconditional withdrawal and it’s not even close. They favor that by a 25-point margin, and it’s a 29-point margin among independents. Those are huge margins. Very few public policy questions of any significance produce margins that large. And the whole point of asking the question this way — do you favor withdrawal “regardless of what is going on in Iraq?” — is to exclude the excuse made by John McCain, The Politico and Cokie Roberts that Americans only want to withdraw once we’ve “won” or once we’ve created a peaceful democracy there.

So, I come to the question that everyone should be asking: Why do they continually spout that Americans “think this” or “want this” and they are so off-base? Just “who” are the Americans they are talking about? And, even more succinct, why do you listen to them at all?

By all appearances (and I don’t truly know their motivation and can only surmise) they are lying.

Period.

In News That a Redneck Can’t Relate To…

10,000 camels participating in beauty contest

Dubai crown prince buys $2.7 million camel

The crown prince of the United Arab Emirates of Dubai has bought a female camel for a record 2.72 million dollars, an organizer at a camel beauty pageant said on Monday.

Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashed al-Maktoum “bought camels… worth 16.5 million dirhams (4.49 million dollars), including a female camel… for 10 million dirhams (2.72 million dollars),” Hamad bin Kardoum al-Amiri said.

Amiri, quoted by the official WAM news agency, made the remarks on the sidelines of the nine-day beauty pageant which opened on Wednesday in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi.

More than 10,000 camels — including females which are the fasting racing camels — from across the Gulf are competing for prize money totaling around 9.5 million dollars. One hundred cars are also up for grabs.

The contest is part of a camel festival in Abu Dhabi that aims to celebrate and preserve the region’s cultural heritage.

Oil-rich Abu Dhabi, one of seven emirates that make up the UAE federation, produced the world’s first test-tube purebred camel and has begun using remote-controlled robot riders in its camel races in place of child jockeys.

I don’t know what’s weirder to this redneck: a beauty contest for camels, a $2.7Million camel or a robot ridden test-tube camel.

Hillary Clinton and Political Expediency (Flip-Flopping to the Whitehouse)

Hillary has found herself caught up in lies and stretches of the truth, trying to gather more support for her failing campaign. Signs of desperation? It seems that with every day there is another dumb-ass move.

I almost expect this from presidential candidates, for they all will seemingly do or say anything to obtain the position (with the exception of a few talented and honorable 3rd party candidates).

Jonathon Turley notes that Senator Clinton is now pushing the meme that she is all about the electoral college and that delegates can vote any way they so desire, especially the Super Delegates. The electoral college and the Super Delegates scheme basically work very similarly:

Hillary Clinton’s superdelegate strategy has highlighted the flaws in our electoral college system — and the need to finally embrace democracy in its truest form in the selection of the President of the United States. The column below explores the controversy.

Granted, Professor Turley’s article isn’t a bash against Clinton (at least, fully frontal), but is more an evaluation of the electoral college system, which he deems (and I agree) a “Constitutional Relic”.

HEADLINE: Unequal votes;
The Electoral College is a relic of elitist Framers who didn’t fully trust ‘the people.’ Yet the Democratic Party’s superdelegate system relies on the same disturbing principle.

It appears that the Electoral College has finally found a passionate advocate. Indeed, the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been talking so much about the Electoral College, one would think she was an alumna.

In her campaign for superdelegates, Clinton has been insisting that it is irrelevant whether Barack Obama receives the majority of votes or even the majority of states. It is all about the Electoral College; therefore, voters in red states who chose Obama do not really count because, as Democrats, they will not have any say in the general election.

Clinton is, of course, correct.

And she is correct. Not correct that this SHOULD be the way, but that this IS the way it is (and I agree that it should be changed). It was derived because the elitist founders didn’t trust the citizenry with electing the upper house (originally, they were elected by the House of Representatives).

The Electoral College and the superdelegate system work on the same premise: Citizens sometimes cannot be entirely trusted to choose the next president. Clinton last week even dismissed the notion of “pledged” (or non-super) delegates as a “misnomer,” suggesting that they are free to disregard the will of voters in choosing a nominee.

The senator of New York has stressed that such delegates would not be swayed by the “passion” and oratory of Obama. Since many of Obama’s states are locks for the Republicans in the Electoral College come November, her campaign has called on the party leadership to recognize that she is more electable in a system that does not recognize the national majorities.

Clinton would have found great allies in the Framers. Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry warned that “the people are uninformed and would be misled by a few designing men.” Even George Mason, the great advocate of the Bill of Rights, dismissed direct election due to the inability of ordinary citizens to actually see and hear candidates, given the country’s size: “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper magistrate to the people as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”

Now, they may have had a point for the time and the lack of communication in comparison to today. But, today, even Mrs Clinton can’t take a dump without the world knowing it. She certainly can’t make up a “sniper story” without the world having access to the truth on tape (something the founding fathers probably couldn’t even imagine, much less use to form a election/voting system).

So, was there a time that they may have been correct in their assessment? Entirely possible… or they may have just been elitist assholes in need of power. Kind of moot, now.

What is not moot, is how Sen Clinton can flip-flop about her feelings regarding this issue only when it seems to affect her negatively.

Despite our immense respect for the Framers, they were not perfect. Even so, they did possess the humility to acknowledge that time could prove them wrong and created a process by which we could amend the Constitution. We have proved them wrong about the ability of ordinary citizens to make decisions directly about their government; we have proved better than their expectations.

One politician understood that in 2000, stating, “We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. … We should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

It was Hillary Clinton.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of the USA TODAY board of contributors.

Prof Turley has one of the most excellent blogs on the net (in my opinion).

Don Siegelman: What Is The Verdict?

Dam Abrams had Don Siegelman on his show again last night (The Verdict has been one of the most vocal TV shows regarding the Siegelman case I have seen or heard of).

Last night, Dan explained to Gov Siegelman that they had contacted Karl Rove’s attorney and asked if Karl would testify.:

We asked this question to his attorney: Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case? The answer we got — “Sure.”

When it came to testifying in front of Congress, responding to the firing of the US Attorneys, KKKarl refused and was held in “contempt” (as if that seems to matte to anyone in Congress or the Justice Department). Should we make a poor man’s wager that he never testifys in Siegelman’s case?