Long, but worth watching

Um, no.

Not unless it
was The Death
and End of
Bushtard.

That's some righteous indignation.

I'm glad someone is pissed. Most folks don't even know what happened, or who Lewis Libby is.

Have no idea who.what ya ar taking about but Bishj has to be sorted out.
First of all, he is NOT drinking whart disqualifies him as the klegitimate president. s
econd: he backs up terrorist state of israel, third one: he is NOT drinking anymore.
Texas isd Still at elast to soem,CSOA, and drinking and getting drunk is a must a tradition I say. Thus, whatever.

Dude. I am so not reading that.

Like ya could.

Seriously? I know who Libby (whose name reminds me of a dog w/ worms) is
and I don't even watch the tellyavision.

I'm just surprised to see indignance anymore.

Sell out your country and get off scot free.

I offer to blow him, if it'll end in impeachment.

You're channeling Gimp.

Why Gimp? You have understood? Bravissimo!

Look at the
bottom left
of this screen,
you can change
the language from
English to Spucky,
which is Gimp talk.

lookdattthe
bottom left
of thes screen,
you can change
the language from
English tooSpucky,
which issGemp taklen .

Le Gempe

Cool device.

Thank Jack.

Jack maketh.
Jack braketh.

Just saw that now. He hit the nail on the head with the biggest hammer I've seen in a long time. Of course telling the truth doesn't amount to much with these fucks. They could be caught red handed lighting crack pipes with flaming baby Jew hearts, and they'd get away with it. Since the law doesn't matter to them though, then I guess that would make it OK if somebody were to throw a few molotov cocktails at the White House.

Man, that is some righteous indignation.
Awesome. Simply awesome.
Not that anything will come of it.

All I gotta say is...
"worst Presidency ever."

Wurst presidency ever: Vote for Liver.

Would that be the
knock or brat type
of wurst?

Vielleicht, Würstchen?

Clearly: brat, no?

Hell, I'd vote for him.

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi

Big surprise here.

Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides
By LAURIE KELLMAN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
July 10, 2007 1:35 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - President Bush directed former aides to defy congressional subpoenas on Monday, claiming executive privilege and prodding lawmakers closer to their first contempt citations against administration officials since Ronald Reagan was president.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Bush had cited executive privilege in resisting Congress' investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith in withholding documents and directing the two aides - Fielding's predecessor, Harriet Miers, and Bush's former political director, Sara Taylor - to defy subpoenas ordering them to explain their roles in the firings over the winter.

In the standoff between branches of government, Fielding renewed the White House offer to let Miers, Taylor and other administration officials meet with congressional investigators off the record and with no transcript. He declined to explain anew the legal underpinnings of the privilege claim as the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees had directed.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," Fielding wrote.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House panel, left little doubt where the showdown was headed.

"Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the posturing was a waste of time and money and a distraction from the questions at hand: Who ordered the firings, why, and whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should continue to serve or be fired.

Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Democrats' threat of taking the standoff to court on a contempt citation was spurious because the prosecutor who would consider it is a Bush appointee.

"On a case like this, does anyone believe the U.S. attorney is going to bring a criminal contempt citation against anyone?" Specter said in a telephone interview. "The U.S. attorney works for the president and it's a discretionary matter what the U.S. attorney does."

Historically, such standoffs over executive privilege are resolved before the full House or Senate votes on referring a congressional contempt citation to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But rather than cooling off over the July 4th holiday, Bush and Democrats returned from the weeklong break closer to a legal confrontation.

The last contempt finding Congress sought to prosecute was against former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle in 1983. The Democratic-led House voted 413-0 to cite her for contempt for refusing to appear before a House committee. She was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge but was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Just before Congress left town, Bush invoked executive privilege on subpoenas lawmakers filed for any documents Taylor and Miers received or generated about the firings. On Monday, Bush again invoked privilege on the women's scheduled testimony for this week. Through their attorneys, Bush instructed the pair not to testify on the firings.

Lawmakers said they had plenty of questions to ask the women outside the privilege claim.

Both officials were included on e-mails about the firings released earlier this year by the Justice Department, and Miers at one point suggested the firings of all 93 federal prosecutors. Taylor also could have sent e-mails on a Republican National Committee account outside the White House, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who insisted those communications were not covered by executive privilege.

The dispute squeezes Miers and Taylor between the president's instructions and the possibility of being held in contempt of Congress. Their lawyers did not respond to requests for comment, but Leahy said he expects Taylor to appear before his panel Wednesday, as scheduled. It was unclear if Miers would appear before Conyers' committee the next day.

Fielding invoked executive privilege in dismissing a Monday morning deadline set by Conyers and Leahy for the White House to explain and list which documents it was withholding from their committees.

"We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may `direct' the executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of executive privilege," he wrote.

Bush's counsel, a veteran of executive privilege disputes, cloaked his tough rejoinder to the Democratic committee chairmen in gentlemanly language. But his message was unequivocal: The White House won't back down.

He argued that the committees' "open-ended" investigation into the firings had no constitutional basis, in large part because the president has the right to hire and fire his own political appointees.

Fielding cast the impasse as a natural constitutional tension between branches of government and complained that Leahy, D-Vt., and Conyers had accused the White House of acting in something other than good faith. He called for "a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

Democrats didn't bite.

"The president seems to think that executive privilege is a magic mantra that can hide anything, including wrongdoing," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democrats' 2008 election campaign operation.

Say what you will about Moore but he does a grate job of bitchslapping Wolf Blitzer and talking reality on CNN.

Scooter should have gone to jail, it would have let off a little pressure, I used to think things will blow if they don't find a vent, but I'm not sure the Americans give a xit about anything, anymore.
Our prisons are full of people who couldn't afford to keep their drivers license yet couldn't afford to not drive,
they are full of people who for whatever reason, choose not to support the industrial pharmaceutical complex but instead grow or just smoke their own,
they are full of mothers and fathers who split up because of the stresses of poverty and end up in jail for not paying child support, they are full of people who do not have passports, they are full of people who are mentally ill,
they are full of all the sorry bastards a military industrial society can provide,
but there ain't no god damn presidentially protected traitors, no, not enough of them,
not enough government contractors who cheat,
not enough security advisers who lie
not enough public stewards who steal
not enough politicians who take bribes, or stock market inside traders
not enough suit and tie wearing bastards, they are all at the root of every other evil;
kill the land lord.

You're right. The prisons are full of those who can't afford "justice" and we have more of our population locked up than andy other country does. There is also an incentive with the growth of prison labor which put us out of work and undermines organized labor -- prisoners make good scabs.

The worst criminals wear ties and never get locked up.

You're boss is a terrorist, the landlord too.

You're the one who doesn't know how to write your possessives.

But perhaps in your case it's a political choice ;).

Perhaps. Or it could be those feral apostrophes and commas that raom my desk.

Slap'em and you can reuse them as commas.

Make 'em squeal like a pig.

I'll add Feral Apostrophe to my list of SK8 name candidates.

Ya catch that, Bill?

He's on lockdown.

Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify

Grate.

Makes me nostalgic for Robespierre . . .

He is still with us, albeit a bit changed.

Shorter and greener.

And once you finish it, you feel really beheaded. Not sure if they sell it anymore.

I can see that.

That may change.

I had never heard of the DQA — That rocks!
I hear this on the heels of the news that
Congress yesterday passed legislation extending expired funding
for abstinence-only sex ed.
Hmmm...

You 2 boys might be interested in this Scientific American article, in which the editors decry the conditions that make it nearly impossible to fund and conduct relevant research.

Once you get old and you hurt every fuckin' place, I think you should have the right to take the pain away. If a terminal cancer patient needs marijuana to maintain an appetite, so be it. It's about quality of life. I have heard some opponents argue about 'addiction'. If you're terminal, I doubt you're gonna hang around enough for any so-called 'addiction'.

Fuckin'-A right. They should be able to get Heroin.

The belief that one can judge
or even comprehend
the pain of others is ridiculous.

The conviction that I was the best judge
of how people ought to alleviate suffering
that is, to me, incomprehensible
would mark me as:
• intellectually dishonest,
• morally atrophic,
• or seriously, perhaps pathologically, deficient in empathy.
Maybe all three.

My butt hurts.

I drink.

Verlaine used to keep several bots of extrait under his bed until he died. I bet he died happy. Good point, Nymph.

Neurology on the medical efficacy of marijuana (Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial) Abstract

A DEA Administrative Law Judge agreed.

The legislation is not subject to the DQA, but any HHS statements on the benefits or alleged successes of abstinence-only sex ed are subject to the Act. The DQA and implementing guidelines were written to allow non-lawyers to file Requests for Correction.
Hmmm...