Well put!

George W. Bush lies about everything, all the time, and without compunction. Big things, little things, provable things and unprovable things. He has spent his entire administration lying about everything from war to the economy to his own advisors' activities to surveillance to the plain meaning of laws to everything else, and he's staffed his government and his Justice Department with unapologetic liars as well. Anyone who hasn't realized this at this point is beyond the help of reason or medical science.

--Hunter at Daily Kos

We're not talking about a divan

If you would like to know something about the very secret and universally opposed SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) that Bush has been trying to foist on Iraq, check out Smintheus' article. This is something the White House will not reveal, Congress has no chance to review, the Iraqi Parliament has no chance to review, and that makes all kinds of commitments (but we don't know what they are). Sort of Bush's back-door plan towards a permanent virtual occupation or something like that. But who knows? You can learn lots from what Smintheus shares.
--the BB

Again and again and again and again....

Steve Benen at Crooks and Liars reminds us why Bush's speech yesterday sounded like a re-run.

Yesterday, speaking from the White House, the president boasted, “American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress” in Iraq. It got me thinking, haven’t we heard that phrase before in relation to Iraq?

* White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on October 27, 2003: “In the north and south [of Iraq], we have made significant progress.”

* President Bush on November 13, 2004: “Fighting together, our forces have made significant progress in the last several days.”

* President Bush on June 28, 2005: “In the past year, we have made significant progress.”

* Vice President Cheney on October 19, 2006: “[W]e’ve made significant progress.”

* President Bush on February 23, 2007: ” I think we have made significant progress in Iraq.”

Added all up this clearly indicates that the Iraqi nation is in fabulous shape by now.

And I'm the Queen of Rumania.
--the BB

Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar.

Scarecrow documents the deceptions from yesterday.

Such as reducing troop tours from 15 to 12 months - which does not affect anyone currently deployed. Of course, if you are deployed after August 2008, when it would go into effect, you would see the difference come August 2009, or later, when the next president is in office and things could be very different. In other words, right now it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone.

Asshat.
--the BB

I might start liking her again if she keeps this us up

Speaker Pelosi deftly makes her point.

The topic is FISA.



h/t Joe Sudbay at Americablog

--the BB

There are things we don't want you to know

From ABC News:

The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online

This report is the result of thorough review of over 600,000 Iraqi documents. And one of the findings that stands out is this:


Which only confirms what we have known for some time.

Now why would George W. Bush NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS?

Because it proves that they fabricated the reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.



Yes, the report verifies Saddam's links with various terrorist groups or at least cooperation when they had overlapping goals, but not with Al Qaeda.

h/t to StuHunter at Daily Kos.

Joe Sudbay reports on this at Americablog also.
--the BB

Immoral, invincible Bush only lies

In dark inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most wicked, notorious, death-dealing his ways,
The world he destroys while he still garners praise.
--with apologies to Walton Chalmers Smith


Jesse Wendel at The Group News Blog informs us of the following:

On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement", the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.

In an article from The Seattle Times ("Bush says feds can open mail without warrant") that Wendel cites, we read:

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming new authority.

"In certain circumstances — such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' — the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.

Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" that could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.

I wonder whether Emily Lawrimore was experimenting with ayahuasca or merely some especially potent White House kool-aid because I can think of no other way she might imagine that the Constitution does not require warrants in certain circumstances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What part of "shall not be violated" or "no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause" does Ms. Lawrimore not understand?

If there is a "ticking bomb" situation, even the FISA court statutes allow for action first and requesting a warrant within 72 hours thereafter, so action is not forbidden but actually provided for. Don't let them ever tell you that Congress or the Democrats don't want to allow them to act for our protection. It's pure bullshit and they know it.

We cannot, we must nut, allow the White House to redefine the Constitution to mean the opposite of its clear intent. Strike down their lies! Inform the ignorant! Correct the bloviators!

George Walker Bush is a liar. The people surrounding him are liars. Say it loud and say it proud; they must not be allowed to get away with it!

[I originally typed that he was "a damned, detestable liar," but damning is God's job and not mine. That I detest the man and everything he stands for is so obvious it would be redundant to insert it in the large-type passage.]

This constitutes this week's Thursday Constitution blogging post.
--the BB

Cui bono? Who profits?

It seems that the Republicans have another concern about the telecommunications companies. Some of the corporate donations are beginning to head toward the Dem side of the aisle.

Mcjoan concludes:

Hmmmm.... Sounds to me like the telcos are a little less concerned about amnesty than they are about coming out on the right side of the next Congress. And maybe it sounds like the Republicans are a little more concerned about trying to protect their hold on the telco lobbyists and all their money than they are protecting America.

You can read the post with a clip from Roll Call here.

Then there's His Majesty the Lying Sack whining and bullying and posturing and pouting. Oh, the urgency! Not to mention the issue of fairness, and we all know George IV is about what's fair, right?

President George Bush today repeated his call for Congress to approve legislation that would protect phone companies from lawsuits filed by people who oppose the role they play in providing terrorist surveillance information to the US government.

'Allowing these lawsuits to proceed would be unfair,' Bush said in the White House today.
[CNNMoney.com]

Bush tries to give the impression that those who pursue transparency in government and want to investigate possible illegal actions at high levels are the equivalent of cheesy ambulance chasers exploiting tort law. [Of course, Bush's beloved theme of "tort reform" is really about making corporations immune from accountability, much as he wishes to be himself. But that's another, yet related, topic.]

In an earlier post mcjoan shares Bush's whining and fearmongering.

More important, Bush added, "the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance and it would give al Qaida and others a roadmap as to how to avoid the surveillance."

To which mcjoan responds:

Of course, the litigation process would disclose information on the illegal activities of the government, which is more to the point. Classified information about surveillance processes would of course remain classified in the process. Another straw man from the administration.

BarbinMD has a post with a lucid response to Bush at Daily Kos.

Rush Holt (NJ-12), the Chair of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel had this to say about George Bush's latest fearmongering on the need to pass the Protect AT&T Act:

What the President really wants is a permanent blank check to conduct indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions without any judicial oversight. This does not lead to better intelligence.

The President has had multiple opportunities to work with Congress to modernize FISA. Instead, he has chosen to demagogue this issue through a propaganda campaign, one dependent on fear-mongering and false accusations. If the President is serious about protecting the American people, he'll drop the campaign-style rhetoric and work with us to pass a realistic and workable intelligence surveillance bill.

[Emphasis mine]

--the BB