AT&T Owns the Democrats

So the Democratic National Convention has sponsors and guess who is providing the nice bags for all the bullshit trinkets that are given out? You guessed it. The same one that owns the Dems and has reason for paying them all off for their cover up of crimes they perpetrated with the most hated Republican president of all time.

Yes, people, this company owns the very ones you vote for and the hypocrisy in this bag is overwhelming to me. I suppose they will simply stuff them with $100 bills and hand them out in gratitude for the congressional complicity in the raping of America’s freedoms.

On another note, the convention is being held at the Pepsi Center. So who is advertising on the other side of the bag?

That is almost funny, if it wasn’t so infuriating.

h/t Glenn Greenwald

FISA Law: No Public Value

B’Man: I pointed out earlier that these Dems were complicit and following the money was the best course of action. However, Glenn Greenwald also notes that their complicity stems from even deeper motives (actually knowing about the illegal activity and NOT saying anything to begin with).

Just the type of thing a bank robber or any criminal would like to achieve: change the law after the crime… to FIT the crime. Both THUGS and Dems are a part of this coverup.

I think they’re simply waiting to see if the public’s interest will wane and we’ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing — that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.

It’s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful. . . .

This is a very frightening bill. What people have to understand is that FISA itself is controversial. This court issued tens of thousands of warrants granted applications for surveillance without turning down any. Only recently did they turn down two. . . . What you’re seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. It is something that allows the president and the government to go in to law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone, and to engage in warrantless surveillance. That’s what the framers that drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent. . . .

Well, there’s no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.

And, I’m afraid this is Washington politics at the worst. And, so, I think that what you’re seeing with this bill is not just caving in to a very powerful lobby, but also caving in to sort of the worst motivations on Capitol Hill since 9/11. You know, the administration was very adept at bringing in Democrats at a time when they knew they couldn’t refuse, to make them buy in to this program, and now that investment is bearing fruit.So, of course key Congressional Democrats who were made aware of these illegal torture and surveillance programs are going to protect the Bush administration and other lawbreakers. If you were Jay Rockfeller or Nancy Pelosi, would you want there to be investigations and prosecutions for torture programs that, to one degree or another, you knew about? If you were Jane Harman, wouldn’t you be extremely eager to put a stop to judicial proceedings that were likely to result in a finding that surveillance programs that you knew about, approved of, and helped to conceal were illegal and unconstitutional?

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney celebrated the signing of the new FISA bill at the White House along with Jay Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer and Jane Harman (see the wonderful photos here), they weren’t just celebrating with the political officials who helped protect them from consequences for illegal acts. They were celebrating with those who were participants in those acts, and who were therefore just as eager for immunity and an end to judicial proceedings as Bush officials themselves.

The Obama FISA Flop

B’Man: What will it take for Dems to realize that he took them for a ride?

Glenn Greenwald continues to evaluate an obvious flip-flop from “Mr Change” on his backing of this FISA legislation and what is apparently a move to attract right-leaning folks to the total consternation of those who voted for him in the Primaries.

In his article Obama Advisor Greg Craig: Adding Insult to Injury, Glenn shows the blatant turn-around on this issue over the past year and how the explanations now are not only false, but by all appearances, downright lies.

In today’s New York Times, James Risen — who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing Bush’s illegal NSA spying program — has an article reporting on Obama supporters who are criticizing Obama for his FISA reversal and who are attempting to defeat the bill which Obama supports. The article quotes Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas and myself and features the very innovative effort by Obama supporters to use his campaign’s social networking tools to urge Obama to oppose the FISA bill (more on that campaign here). For his article, Risen spoke with Obama adviser Greg Craig, a partner at the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly, and this is what Craig told Risen:

Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.”This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”

Craig’s statement is flat-out false. FISA — enacted in 1978 and amended many times to accommodate modern communications technology — has no expiration date. The Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last August to legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americas, had a 6-month sunset provision and thus already expired back in February, restoring FISA as the governing law. Thus, if Congress does nothing now, FISA will continue indefinitely to govern the Government’s power to spy on the communications of Americans. It doesn’t expire. What Craig said in defense of Obama is just wrong.

B’Man: These people are truly scrambling, trying to cover Obama’s tracks. Thing is, this is a total capitulation of him on this issue, as Glenn points out further down into his article:

Back in August, when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, Obama voted against the Protect America Act. Therefore, had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?

I asked Craig that question several times and received completely incoherent replies, after which he started insisting that he already answered me and had nothing else to add (he then changed the subject to talk about the “improvements” the current bill achieves over the Rockefeller Senate bill). The fact is that there is no answer. In the past, Obama has opposed the type of warrantless eavesdropping which those PAA orders authorize. He’s repeatedly said that the FISA court works and there’s no need to authorize eavesdropping without individual warrants. None of that can be reconciled with his current claim that he supports this FISA “compromise” because National Security requires that those PAA orders not expire and that there be massive changes to FISA. It’s just as simple as that.

B’Man: Ah, but Glenn, aren’t we supposed to just “believe” that Mr Obama is only slightly rubbing up close to the illegal activities, so that he can bring havoc when he is the president? That Keith Olbermann is correct, that we should elect Barack at any cost, because McCain would be much worse? Hell, why don’t we just let Bush pass a presidential declaration that he will stay on for a few more years, because he really has good things planned…

Am I the only redneck on the planet that wants to know the truth and is NOT ok with them lying to me and the country? Really? I’m the ONLY one?

Truth would require that he actually, eh, tell the truth. Just come out and say it. Don’t lie.

It’s bad enough that Obama is supporting a new warrantless eavesdropping scheme. They should just candidly admit that he changed his position rather than feeding incoherent and insultingly false rationalizations to the public — whereby they throw around the terms “National Security” and “balance” enough times and hope that nobody notices or cares that what they’re saying makes no sense. One of the strengths of the Obama campaign has been a willingness to have adult discussions about complex political issues, assume a fair amount of rationality and intelligence on the part of the voting public, and avoid manipulative, obfuscating sloganeering like this. It’s just adding insult to injury to resort to nonsensical justifications of the type Craig put into the New York Times today.

Just to get a flavor for how fundamental a reversal is Obama’s FISA position, here is what Obama said back in February when accepting Chris Dodd’s endorsement:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens — and set an example to the world — that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America –- no one is above the law.

Here is what he said back in January:

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . .

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power — and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

And obviously, his vow last October to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” can’t be reconciled with his vow to “support” such a bill now…

…The issue is that Obama has repeatedly, over the course of the last year, made emphatic commitments and clear statements about his own core political values that are completely irreconcilable with his support for the FISA bill. It’s possible to recognize that someone is just a “politician” and still trust that they’re essentially telling you the truth about what they think and what they’ll do. One hard-core Obama supporter explains that here.

As I said, it’s bad enough that this is being done. Eventually, the sting of what Obama and Democrats generally have done will diminish somewhat for many people. But for those who have sat by watching the Bush administration and its followers exploit complexities over spying issues in order to issue one false claim after the next to justify Bush’s lawbreaking, having the Obama campaign issue factually false and/or incoherent explanations to justify Obama’s conduct only makes matters worse, not better.

B’Man: It is not only bad enough that he does these things, then tries to slither away from previous statements, it is exactly what we have had for 7 + years and is time to stop. Maybe this is a blessing, if people will pay attention.

The fact is that neither of the “Big Two” are anything but lying shift-changers. America is too stupid to realize you are being led to slaughter, even by your precious Barack.

Baaa

What Is Your Idea Of Bipartisanship?

B’Man: Apparently many of the Bushie Demublicans feel like this idea constitutes reTHUGlicans voting 100% lockstep and the Bushie Dems “reaching across the aisle” in “bipartisan” fashion, so that the THUGS always win. I’m so happy that you guys are so “fair”. Glenn Greenwald points out specific cases and lays out the vote for you to judge for yourself:

Many people, especially partisans, always believe that their own side is compromising too much and that the other side is always winning, so it’s best to consult objective facts in order to know how “bipartisanship” works. Here are the vote breakdowns by party over the last couple years on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49

Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2

Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

B’Man: They are playing us, people. Always just enough to claim a fight, but losing nonetheless. And the money continues to flow… and you get poorer and sicker and lose your rights.

h/t Digby at Hullabaloo

Must Avoid TV: When Olbermann Became Owned

He used to put on a decent show. He would rave and rant at the right times. He made it “acceptable” to accuse the President of his shenanigans and evil-doing. He helped many Americans realize that the Right has taken over, by brute force, the airways and mindset of the American people, even though many Americans knew these things to be against their core values and beliefs.

Keith used to help me to feel like we had hope that the political movement “could” be changed. That maybe, just maybe, someone from the progressive side of the political spectrum could actually become a voice again. But, slowly and surely, he has become owned by “them” and I feel he has either been told something that changed his mind or he is a flip-flopper on one of the most crucial things happening today in Washigton.

I have found myself becoming less attentive to his show and over the last week or so have not really watched at all. Why? Because he has fallen for the Obama rhetoric and has totally capitulated on a Special Comment regarding the telecom immunity deal that Obama now flip-floppingly supports (his flip-flops are becoming quite regular now).

So Keith has decided that it isn’t so bad now that Obama has capitulated to Big Telecom’s influence and has decided that Mr Obama simply knows something the rest doesn’t and that stopping the civil court process will enable a super-secret Criminal attack when Obama wins. Its all planned and we should believe that they will be held accountable in the future. Just elect him to get it done, I suppose (the carrot dangles before the Progressives, again).

Keith, who still holds some of my admiration, has become just another TV personality. You know, the kind that you can’t trust for anything truthful, but will be controlled by other rationale. They all seem to do it. I still hold out hope for Bill Moyers.

Glenn Greenwald took Keith to task about this and Olbermann replied… thing is, with Glenn, you better have your shit together, for he will proverbially spank you if you bullshit him. I recommend everyone subscribing to his blog.

In his Kos reply, Olbermann pronounces that my piece yesterday was “simplistic and childish” but then adds the standard dismissive Journalist defense: “I don’t know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn’t read his full piece.” He says that he refrained from criticizing Obama’s support for the FISA bill in reliance on John Dean’s comments, and “John Dean is the smartest person I’ve ever met” and “John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds” — so that settles that (for what it’s worth, I also have a high opinion of Dean’s legal acumen; hosted his appearance at FDL’s Book Salon; don’t disagree with him about this bill at all; have communicated with him about many issues; and he has said many complimentary things about my work in the past, so waving the flag of Dean’s Unassailable Authority establishes nothing).

Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama’s support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with — Obama Voted Against FISA — if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.

How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he’s rationalizing Obama’s support for the bill and then write the above — which does nothing but justify Obama’s support for the bill? That’s exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday — that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That’s the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it’s that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated.

Isn’t it amazing how Keith finds himself in such a mixed up conundrum? I call it hypocrisy.

to give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill — one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution — based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous. That’s been the Right’s mentality to excuse every last thing Bush does:

It may look to you like Bush is breaking the law or doing something wrong, but he’s a Good person and so we can trust in him that he’s doing it for our own Good, even when he doesn’t tell us why he’s doing it and even when he keeps his real motives a secret. He probably has a good reason for doing these things and we don’t need to know what that is. Besides, we’re facing such an extreme crisis that it’s more important to support him than criticize him even when we don’t understand why he’s doing something and even when we don’t know what it is that he’s doing.

No political leader deserves that sort of blind faith — not Bush and not Obama.

There is so much more in Glenn’s article, but let me finish with the following observation that I totally agree with. I am sick and tired of hearing about chnage in how leadership operates. I want to SEE IT IN ACTION!

As he mentions in his Kos diary, Olbermann had the vocally pro-Obama Markos Moulitsas on his show on Monday night and tried to get Markos to embrace this excuse for Obama. Markos rejected it emphatically:

OLBERMANN: But to the point of the Constitution, John Dean made a fascinating point on this news hour on Friday. He read this bill and he knows a little something about the Constitution, too. He says it’s so sloppily written that nothing in there would rule out later criminal liabilities for the telecom companies.Could that be, actually, what Obama is counting on, just sort of cede this civil action stuff which is basically in lieu of sending these people to jail and just concentrate on, you know, closing up whatever perceived weakness there is of the Democrats being soft on counterterror and, in fact, just hold a bigger punch back until after the election?

MOULITSAS: Well, if that’s the strategy, he has said nothing to indicate that and this is not the sort of thing that I think you have to keep quiet and secretive. I mean, if that’s his strategy, he can say, “This is a bill that’s flawed,” but, really at the end of the day he has a chance to stand for the Constitution and to show that he will protect it against forces that seek to undermine it and he will show that he has, like I said before, that he is a leader and will take the mantle of leadership on this issue and take control of the Democratic Party.

Markos — who observed: “I don’t think he’s going to lose any support, I mean, let’s be honest. I mean, it’s either Obama or John McCain” — nonetheless added:

I think what’s at stake, though, is a lot of the intensity of support for Barack Obama. And he spent the last two years telling us how he’s going to be the leader of the free world, not to mention the Democratic Party and this nation . . . . I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution; I want to see him do it.

That is precisely the point, and of course those who believe in defending core constitutional liberties shouldn’t remain quiet when any politician — including Obama — takes actions to erode them.

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?

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.

Lee Hamilton MUST Investigate Attorney General Mukasey’s 911 Statements

Glenn Greenwald asks his readers to write Lee Hamilton to ensure he pursues the comments made by Attorney General Mukasey. Glenn writes:

Last week, during a question-and-answer session following a speech he delivered San Francisco, Attorney General Michael Mukasey revealed a startling and extremely newsworthy fact. As I wrote last Saturday, Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a “safe house in Afghanistan” into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call. Some help is required from readers here to generate the attention for this story that it requires.

In that speech, Mukasey blamed FISA’s warrant requirement for the failure to eavesdrop on that call — an assertion which is, for multiple reasons that I detailed in that post, completely false. He then tearfully claimed that FISA therefore caused the deaths of “three thousand people who went to work that day.” For obvious reasons, the Attorney Geenral’s FISA falsehoods themselves are extremely newsworthy, but it is the story he told about the pre-9/11-planning call from Afghanistan itself that is truly new, and truly extraordinary.

Glenn contacted Mr Hamilton and was informed that he could not comment on this revelation because he was too busy at the time. when asked if he would comment later, after having time to review the comments, he said he wouldn’t be able to comment later, either.

Do any rednecks feel like something is amiss? Like Mr Hamilton may be complicit in the cover-up? Nah… couldn’t be. They are Americans, right?

I ask that you contact this man and request that this be investigated. My letter to Chairman Hamilton went this morning (Lee.hamilton@wilsoncenter.org):

Dear Chairman Hamilton,

I read of your refusal to comment to Glenn Greenwald’s questions regarding Attorney General Mukasey’s odd, but revealing comments regarding communications and evidence that we had information leading up to the 9/11 attacks. I also understand that you have refused to comment (being too busy yesterday) and then suggesting that you would never reply or address these comments (having not read the speech, yet).

For articles you can read and/or watch to inform yourself with:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZMApSdZ_Ld4

As an American citizen who is very concerned about his country and those who are leading it to its demise, it is imperative that you diligently pursue all avenues of investigation. At this point in our history, there is nothing that bolsters my confidence in those who are considered “leaders”. It is time that you help restore this faith within me and many more Americans like me by doing what is right and noble and truly investigate all avenues regarding 9/11, especially the newest commentary by the new Attorney General.

There are too many unanswered questions regarding the entire 911 attack and investigations, including those who were on the commission and what influence they had in squashing potentially enlightening information, for you to not pursue this. Any disregard for the action, or further avoidance will only fuel the conspiracy theories and distrust in our government. One must admit that with the lies and total ineptness of the Bush administration, nothing should go without scrutiny and exhaustive research into their actions.

As a concerned American citizen, I demand truth and accountability from my leaders. I expect the exact same from you and the rest on the commission.

Thanks for your time and expedient resolution to this travesty of continued lies and cover-ups of truth.

BuelahMan (real name sent)

To see the video of Mukasey’s comments, click below.

 I would like to add that the “conspiracy theorist” within me seems to be led down the path that this is far worse than is being let on. What I find amazing is that even many progressives deny even the remote possibility that 9/11 could have been orchestrated by our government or faction within. The argument is that too many people had to be in on it and the lie could not be perpetuated without the public finally knowing the detail. I am more and more of the opinion that most Americans don’t want to know the truth about it. That for it to be true would be monstrous and unbelievable.

I am not saying it is true, but have investigated enough to know that it IS possible. To understand all the details regarding the fall, interviews of people at the site, including firemen and policemen, show that loud explosions happened before the fall, even down in the basement. Or that the supporting columns had 45 degree cuts in them, as if fire or a fall would cause the steel beams to cut at a precise 45 degree angle (exactly the angle that demolition experts cut beams at). Or that molten metals were found many weeks after the fall.

But I come back to every OTHER instance of lies and deceit that the Bush Administration has conducted and enforced among the neocon cronies that make up the administration. I, as an American, cannot fathom how everyday Americans like me could go one more day without high suspicions of wrong-doing and ill-gotten gains by these obvious crooks.

What have they done that is NOT suspicious? Why believe them on this one count when everything else is a damn lie?

I can’t prove that the evil bastards did it… but I would be a fool to think it is beyond their capabilities. Anyone that can lie us into killing a million or more Iraqis doesn’t give half a rat’s ass about Americans, either.

I find it amazing that almost every TV report of that day has people saying over and over again that it appeared to be a controlled demolition. Yet that story is hardly ever presented any more.

How can it be that the Pentagon has literally hundreds of cameras outside, yet there is  not a single video of the plane hitting it. No plane wreckage. It is only their word. How can it be that they don’t bother to show even some minute video captures of a plane?

Where is the wreckage in the crash  out in the field? That crash certainly looks nothing like any other footage of airline crashes I have ever seen (and since that day I have researched these crash scenes exhaustively… this is the only one like it I can find). A coincidence? A coincidence that the towers are the only buildings in the world that have been deemed to have fallen by fire, especially when they were designed to take a hit just like they took.

Or that Building 7 fell, even though no plane hit it, nor did major damage occur when the others were falling.

No, everything appears on the up and up. Don’t worry your little self. Our leader, George W Bush and the neocon cabal would NEVER do anything to harm Americans.

Wake Up, Rednecks. before it is too late.

Richard Noggin Saturday: Alberto GonzoClone

LATE BREAKING Richard Noggin Addition:

As of 10PM last night, this prick took over as Dickhead of the week.

The Political “Scribe” has been “scribbled” off the Redstate Revolt Honor Roll and added to the lying, Yankee Asshole Roll. 

Hey, Schumer and Feinstein: Are you happy you have endorsed and enabled Mr Gonzales’ Clone of Lying Scumbaggery? When I saw Mr Mukasey make these remarks, tear up and quiver his lip, I didn’t feel his “pain”… I felt outrage. I felt outrage because I know that what he is saying is a downright lie meant to mislead Americans and play on our Patriotic sympathies.

Then, knowing that Mukasey was the Richard Noggin of this week, I read Glenn Greenwald’s piece and understand that I cannot put it any better way:

Michael Mukasey has conclusively proven himself to be an exact replica of Alberto Gonazles — slavishly loyal to every presidential whim and unbound by even the most minimal constraints of truth while serving those whims. Speaking in San Fransisco this week, Mukasey demanded that the President be given new warrantless eavesdropping powers and that lawbreaking telecom be granted amnesty. To make his case, Mukasey teared up while exploiting the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and said this:

Officials “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that’s the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that’s the call that we didn’t know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went.“

At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America’s anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. “We got three thousand. . . . We’ve got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn’t come home to show for that,” he said, struggling to maintain his composure.

At the time of the attacks, Mr. Mukasey was the chief judge at the federal courthouse a few blocks away from the World Trade Center.These are multiple falsehoods here, and independently, this whole claim makes no sense. There is also a pretty startling new revelation here about the Bush administration’s pre-9/11 failure that requires a good amount of attention.

Even under the “old” FISA, no warrants are requiredwhere the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it’s really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have — and should have — eavesdropped on that call and didn’t need a warrant to do so. So why didn’t they? Mukasey’s new claim that FISA’s warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it’s all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the “Afghan safe house.” It just didn’t. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.

They perpetually lie about issues that are key fear factor points for Americans. Then, this nasty little man, who obviously misled congress during hearings, plays on emotions of people with clear lying intent. Make no mistake that he knows exactly what is legal and what is not.

But he didn’t stop there, he is insisting that the Telecom Companies being protected:

Mukasey was even more dishonest in demanding amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms. According to today’s admiring Wall St. Journal Editorial, this is what Mukasey said on that subject:

The AG also addressed why immunity from lawsuits is vital for the telecom companies that cooperated with the surveillance after 9/11. “Forget the liability” the phone companies face, Mr. Mukasey said. “We face the prospect of disclosure in open court of what they did, which is to say the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence against foreign targets.” Al Qaeda would love that.

Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie. Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in “open court.” There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information — closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex partecommunications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge — and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases — is going to allow “disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence.” And Mukasey knows that.

Worse, FISA itself (50 USC 1806(f)) explicitly provides that telecoms are permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (both in camera and ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. Just go read 50 USC 1806(f)of FISA; it’s as clear as day. In fact, it doesn’t merely permit, but explicitly requires, the federal judge to review evidence in secret whenever the Attorney General requests that (”the United States district court in the same district . . . shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance.”).

But Mukasey also lies about what Americans want, and especially what New Yorkers want:

Michael Mukasey can cry all he wants about the 9/11 attacks. But neither he nor the rest of the Bush administration are the proprieters of those attacks. There were millions of New Yorkers in Manhattan on 9/11 other than Michael Mukasey, who lived and worked there for a long time. Neither Mike Mukasey nor his tearful pleas for unchecked government surveillance power and the erosion of the rule of law are representative of them.

To the contrary, the substantial majority of New Yorkers — and huge majorities of Manhattanites– vehemently reject the Bush/Cheney agenda of dismantling our constitutional framework and basic safeguards in the name of these sorts of fear-mongering and manipulative appeals. Unlike Mukasey and other Bush followers, most New Yorkers have ceased quivering in fear long ago — if they ever did — and have had their resolve to defend our basic constitutional liberties strengthened, not obliterated, as a result of the 9/11 attack and the subsequent, self-serving exploitation of it by Mukasey’s White House bosses. And under no circumstances do Mukasey’s tears provide license for this tidal wave of lies in defense of presidential lawlessness, from our nation’s highest “law enforcement officer.”

The Boehner Crybaby routine is old and tired, Mike. It may play with the assembled crowds within the 31% that worships your King, but the rest are wise to the foolishness.

Investigate. Impeach.

The Banality of the Surveillance State

The Banality of the Surveillance State 

 by Glenn Greenwald

Independent of revelations yesterday that the FBI has been abusing its NSL powers for years, it was also reported that the Federal Government is now launching “a domestic intelligence system through computer networks that analyze vast amounts of police information.” The system will store broad new categories of data about the behavior of Americans — from the mildly suspicious to the perfectly innocuous — and will create “new power to discern links among people, patterns of behavior and other hidden clues.”

When asked yesterday during her weekly chat about the dangers of this new system, The Washington Post’s intelligence reporter Dana Priest, one of the country’s few truly great investigative journalists, said this (typos corrected):

Savannah, Ga.: Dana, what’s the flap about this new info sharing system? From what I read in the article, it only shares existing data. . . . Anyway, this seems to be merely a case of reality catching up to Hollywood . . . after all, we’ve been watching “CSI” and “NCIS” for years where they make a few keystrokes and a suspect’s entire life comes pouring out. This was supposed to be one of the things put in after Sept. 11, correct?

Dana Priest: Ah ha? but was is “legal” information. Sure, if you get arrested that’s one thing; or even picked up as a suspect in a crime. Let’s use the example in the story: You have a flat tire near a nuclear power plant. The cop puts that into the data bases and discovers you’ve had three flat tires outside nuclear power plants in the last year. Now that’s interesting and worth looking into, right?

But does that mean something as simple and innocent as a flat tire gets added into the data base. Would that be legal? Switch out “flat tire” for “defaulting on a loan” or “attending a political rally” or “gun purchases” — all legal things. Does it bother you that the police could link up your political rally attendance if they had some other reason to query your information? You see where it’s going . . . . lots of questions. Would have to have safeguards to make it acceptable, I’m certain.The amount of data which the Federal Government now collects and stores regarding the behavior of innocent American citizens is truly staggering. It is just literally true that the Government now maintains sweeping dossiers on its citizens, including ones who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any wrongdoing of any kind. And without much debate or attention of any kind,  the amount of monitoring and the scope of the data just keeps growing. Since when was surveillance and keeping records about innocent Americans ever supposed to be a function of the Federal Government?

The grave dangers from this growing Surveillance State don’t require nefarious, cartoon-like government plots. The most genuine dangers are far more banal than sinister. Just as Priest suggests, it doesn’t take cackling, Lex-Luthor-like government villains to cause serious abuse. Particularly given the almost complete lack of oversight in how the executive branch functions, it’s very easy to imagine the definition of what’s “relevant” and “appropriate” slowly (though inexorably) being moved increasingly outward even by well-intentioned though overzealous intelligence officials, to say nothing of the ones who aren’t well-intentioned. In fact, it’s almost impossible to imagine that not happening.

It’s extremely easy to find people who believe that attendance at a political rally, or membership in certain political groups, or even more pedestrian conduct referenced by Priest, constitutes reasonable grounds for “suspicion.” That mentality is obviously prevalent among some substantial segment of federal government employees and intelligence officers. The decades of intelligence abuses leave no doubt about that.

People who think that way, and who are empowered to maintain dossiers on Americans and investigate them, don’t think they’re doing anything wrong by using those activities to consider certain American suspicious and to spy on them or investigate them further. They think they’re doing their jobs, battling dangers. And as is true for all government power, the greater the scope of the domestic dossiers, the larger it will grow, the more uses that will be found for it. And that’s true regardless of the good faith of the Government at any given moment or its party or ideology. Variables like ideology or bad faith can simply make those dangers even more pronounced.

The danger comes from ineptitude and the inevitably creeping nature of unchecked government power at least as much as it does from more dramatic, malicious spying plots. As one blogger put it yesterday in commenting on the new domestic spying data base:

I fear a surveillance society not because I think that the government will actually catch me in my subversion, but because I fear that it will think that it’s caught me in my subv