Democratic Planks

Bush: "We've never been 'stay the course'"

posted at 4:29 PM       Permalink
|

Learn More about the Republican Candidates!

-AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

posted at 2:19 PM       Permalink
|

CNN Publishes Misleading Diatribe by James Dobson as Uncountered 'Commentary'

The headline on CNN's homepage read: Commentary: Media shows bias for gay marriage, but the more insideous headline of the article itself read "Media provides cover for assault on traditional marriage."

Once again James Dobson of Focus on the Family is attacking queer families while hiding behind the Bible and misconstrued statistics.

Dobson unabashedly argues for a religious belief to be written into the US Consitution. The only reason he provides for gay marriage being 'bad' is his belief that marriage was defined by 'the Creator'--by which he clearly intends the Christian God. Lacking facts*, Dobson and his ilk use statistics to intentionally confuse 'bad' with 'unpopular.'

In a 2003 Pew Forum Survey, the most popular two reasons for opposing gay marriage were both religious. Are we really going to let religion be written into the Constitution?

Dobson's only non-religious argument is that gay marriage is an attack on 'traditional marriage.'

This argument is so preposterous that he doesn't even bother to back it up with a single statistic. I challenge Mr. Dobson to demonstrate a single case where an existing or potential straight marriage has been harmed by giving the 1049 rights allowed only to married couples to loving same-sex couples as well.

*If you consider the Bible to be fact, look at how marriage is protrayed in virtually every instance; most married men in the bible have multiple wives. Is this the 'traditional marriage' Dobson is advocating?

posted at 5:37 PM       Permalink
|

When the Democrats Control the House

It's not looking good for Republicans in congress, with an approval rating of only 25%. Democratic house leaders have a clear plan for their first week in control. Spread the word!

...a Democratic House would quickly vote to raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. It would roll back a provision in the Republicans' Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices for drugs offered under the program.

It would vote to fully implement the recommendations of the bipartisan panel convened to shore up homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Democratic leaders said.

And it would reinstate lapsed rules that say any tax cuts or spending increases have to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the federal deficit from growing.

posted at 11:36 AM       Permalink
|

Senator Feingold Sums Up Warrantless Wiretaps

...I don’t want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn’t...We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.

We know that in part because the President’s Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.

At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn’t know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as “hypothetical.” He then testified that “it’s not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”

Right on. He also points out that we ALL agree that wiretaps are absolutely necessary. And they can be done legally with warrants. These warrants can be even be issued retroactively! Without a warrant, wiretaps are illegal. The President has effectively said "I'm the President and there are mean people out there, so I can do whatever I want." Unfortunately for him, that's not true. The Executive branch is subject to the laws passed by congress, and the FISA law passed decades ago is clear: President Bush is breaking the law.

posted at 5:28 PM       Permalink
|

Liberals: Supporting Our Troops

I've already posted about how Bush told troops in training that they would have the equipment they need. I also described how that was a lie: military families are buying body armour to protect their sons and daughters when the military fails to do so.

Now the Bush administration is charging injured troops for body armor lost in the injuring event. Classy.

Liberal blogger John Aravosis of AMERICABlog was so apalled by this treatment of our troops that he put a button on his website to raise money for a soldier forced to pay the government $700 for the body armor torn off his bloodied body by rescuers as they rushed him to medical help. The readership of AMERICABlog, it should be noted, is rather rabidly anti-war. Nonetheless, in just two hours, these liberal readers donated over $5,000 to reimburse the wounded soldier.

Liberals support our troops. The Neocon administration, by contrast:

• Recalls soldiers who have completed their active duty requirements and returned to civilian life to active duty - a backdoor draft of those who have already sacrificed for their country.
• Makes veterans pay increased fees for health care.

posted at 4:34 PM       Permalink
|

Practice Free Speech - And Get Arrested

Cindy Sheehan, who was given a guest pass to the State of the Union by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), was arrested shortly before the President's address for wearing a T-shirt reading "2,245 Dead. How many More?" According to CNN,

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

Schneider said Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail.

What unlawful conduct? It sounds to me like she was exercising her right to freedom of speech. Sheehan has since written about how she had no intention of causing problems.

I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went...I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.

I don't necessarily agree with Cindy Sheehan on many topics, but the horrible truth of this incident is unavoidable: Cindy Sheehan was arrested and imprisoned last night for wearing a T-shirt that read "2,245 Dead. How many More?"

This was not hate speech. This was not disruptive. This was T-shirt that asked a very valid question. And for this very small act of personal expression, a mother whose son died protecting our "freedom" was imprisoned.

posted at 11:08 AM       Permalink
|

The Attorney General Lied Under Oath

During his confirmation hearings, Alberto Gonzales lied to a senator and denied that the Bush Administration would ever illegally spy on Americans without a warrant.

In other words, he broke the law to cover up the administration breaking the law.

posted at 12:12 PM       Permalink
|

I covered that last week.

Q Scott, would the President veto a three-month extension of the Patriot Act? Is that something you can accept?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to talk about what's going on here. What's going on here is pure obstructionist politics. A minority in the Senate, led by Senate Democrats, are putting politics above our nation's security. This bill has been thoroughly debated. It enjoys majority support. They need to give it an up or down vote and quit playing politics with our nation's security.

Q So would the President veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this passed now.

Q So you would veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed.

Q Can you tell me what that was again?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was.

Q Sounds like you're backing down from that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week.

Q So just say it. Just say --

Q Will you use the word "veto"? Why are you not using the word "veto"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week --

Q But if you still stand by them, why won't you reiterate it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands.

Q Which is what?

posted at 1:53 PM       Permalink
|

Clarity

A bit of clarification on what section of the law was broken by Bush in spying on Americans.

US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, § 1809

(a) Prohibited activities

posted at 2:31 PM       Permalink
|

Bush Succeeds in Installing Religious, Pro-Iran Rule in Iraq?

As Bush's poll number jump, many are citing the recent election in Iraq as a significant accomplishment for this administration. While democratic elections in Iraq are certainly historic, we need to pause and see what the outcome of those elections is going to be. According to the Washington Post:

The preliminary returns pointed toward an Iraqi government that would be led for the next four years by a conservative Shiite religious alliance that has close ties to Iran... In the south -- where nearly all ballots had been counted in most of the provinces -- the United Iraqi Alliance, the main Shiite electoral grouping, swept the voting, outpolling second-place Allawi by a margin of 10 to 1.

Oh dear; that's not good! The article goes on to say that the secular group led by Allawi is claiming massive fraud in the election. This leaves, as W would say, only two options. Either the US has just installed a conservative religious government with ties to Iran, or the election was rigged by that group, demonstrating that the US has been unsuccessful in its goal of fair elections. Neither of these options is particularly appealing.

posted at 9:42 AM       Permalink
|

Continuing the Trend, Bush Says: Yeah, I did it, Yeah, it was illegal... so what?

Yes, your President is actually angry that people are questioning his illegal surveillance of US Citizens without a warrant.

Today Bush admitted to personally authorizing illegal domestic spying over thirty times.

Where is the outrage?

posted at 10:50 AM       Permalink
|

Bush Secret Order Illegal, Punishable Under Patriot Act

The recent disclosure that "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens" is a bombshell. If true, the President authorized criminal eavesdropping on US citizens, punishable by up to $10,000 per aggrieved person, or the total of any loss incurred by that person as a result, whichever is greater.

According to the New York Times, the NSA has acted upon this secret order consistently over the past three years, spying on the e-mail, phone conversations, and other electronic communications of "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people in America.

This is illegal under several sections of US Code, defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which very clearly sets out the conditions under which electronic surveilance can be carried out.

The following breaks down the many ways in which President Bush broke US law (including the Patriot Act) by signing this secret order. I invite feedback and criticism in the comments section!

In English: Why What Bush Did Is Illegal
(distilled largely from this document on the laws involved)

• "Electronic surveillance" is defined as targeted surveillance of any usually-private electronic communication to or from a specific person in the US. (e.g., a phone conversation, which usually cannot be intercepted without a court-ordered wiretap)
  50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)(2)
  

• The President can authorize such surveillance without a court order in only two situations. Surveillance can be authorized...
  

1. ...for one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is unlikely to intercept the communications of any "United States person" AND that steps will be taken to further minimize any such unlikely interception (these steps must be reported to congress by the AG).
   50 U.S.C. § 1802
   
   
2. ..for 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress.
   50 U.S.C. § 1802
   

• If these criteria are not met, people who have been spied upon can:

1. Sue for actual or punitive damages, plus legal costs, if the information was disclosed.
   50 U.S.C. § 1827
   
   
2. Under the Patriot Act, sue for actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus legal costs.
   Patriot Act section 223, 18 U.S.C. § 2712

So let's review:

• Did the President authorize the NSA to conduct Electronic Sureveillance?
• Yes. The NSA has intercepted phone calls and emails of hundreds of people in the US.
• Did the President violate US Law with such authorization?
• With the information currently available, yes. The NSA says it still seeks warrants for 'entirely domestic' communications, but does not say it does so when intercepting communications of US persons. Of course, there also has been no declaration of war.

posted at 12:47 PM       Permalink
|

CBS Poll: Americans Have No Idea Why We're in Iraq

While 61% percent of Americans agree they have no idea why Bush actually thought it was a good plan to invade Iraq, they have some ideas of their own:

WHY DID BUSH ADMIN. DECIDE TO GO TO WAR?

U.S. Oil interests
17%

Fight terrorism
15%

Finish what his father started
13%

To depose Saddam Hussein
10%

Find/stop WMDs
9%

Because of 9/11
8%

Protect U.S. generally
4%

Promote democracy in Mideast
2%

Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted to
2%

posted at 7:34 PM       Permalink
|

Newsies Agree with Dean: Iraq a Lost War

The vast majority of those participating in CNN.com's totally unscientific poll believe that the United States will lose the War in Iraq. While this obviously cannot be construed to represent all Americans, it is at least somewhat indicative of those who keep up with current news. Only 13 % (at the time of the screen cap above - just before 9:00 this morning) think victory can be achieved in two years. Is that the "new victory" where we leave Iraqis in charge of the mess we have created?

Is talking about a criminally mismanaged and poorly planned invasion of a sovereign country "unpatriotic?" I don't think so. The alternative is what?



Does this kind of talk lower troop morale? Probably. Does it lower it as much as being ill-equipped to the point that their boots are falling apart? Frankly, I doubt it.

Does it lower it as much watching their coalition buddies sent home (where there are new boots) as the coalition crumbles?

Finally, does talk of bringing out troops home lower their morale as much as the horrible realization that they are fighting on the same side as those who advocate torture?

posted at 9:02 AM       Permalink
|